Open Q&A 2
Last year, I hosted a rather successful Q&A Forum, answering any and all questions you all have about our Catholic Faith. After 185 posts (!) the comments and questions finally stopped. Rather than continuing that one, since it's enormous and impossible to wade through anymore, I thought I'd open a new one, here.
So, anyone who reads this, if you want to know about, or know more about Catholicism, ask away. And invite your friends!
God bless
Gregory
Labels: Q and A
posted by Gregory at 4:03 p.m.
68 Comments:
Soooooooooo. Greg. First comment here. Hi.
I have two questions, but I don't know what they are, so I'll just ask them in one to two word dealies.
Transubstantiation?
And...
The Pope?
Answer my vague questions!
Kataron,
Gregory and I maintain and contribute to an apologetics site, so if he doesn't mind, I'll take a stab at answering your questions.
You asked "Transubstantiation?" and "The Pope?"
My answers are in keeping with the vagueness of your questions, so I'll just post them in bulletted form:
1) A beautiful truth chalked full of incredible meaning, and profound implications for believers and non-believers alike.
2) A blessed man with a holy charge to serve and lead the Church into truth as he is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Hope that helps.
Christopher J. Freeman
Thanks, Chris.
Nate, you had that coming. LOL
Although, lest people think this will be a site devoted to NOT answering questions, I'll go a little more into detail.
1. Transubstantiation is a doctrine related to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. The Eucharist, or Holy Communion, or The Lord's Supper, is the part of Mass where Jesus' last supper with His disciples is commemorated and repeated.
At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is My Body, which is given for you." After the supper, He took the cup in the same way, blessed it, and said, "Take this, all of you, and drink it. This is My Blood, the blood of the New and everlasting covenant, which will be given for you for the forgiveness of sins."
We believe that when Jesus called the Bread and Wine His Body and Blood, that He meant it, and the bread and wine actually became Jesus--Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
In receiving Jesus in Communion, then, we literally are taking His life into our own, in order to become closer to and more like Him.
However, the problem lies in the fact that, after the prayer of Consecration (when the priest repeats the words of Jesus that I quoted above), the bread still looks like and tastes like bread, and the wine still looks and tastes like wine. In faith, we believe a change has occurred, but what that change was is less obvious.
Hence, in the Middle Ages, great theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas pondered the issue, and the answer that they came up with to explain how exactly the elements (the bread and wine) changed but didn't change, was "Transubstantiation."
The concept of transubstantiation is based on the Aristotelian notion of physics, where everything is made up of three "layers" of being: essence, substance, and accident.
Essence is the core of an object, pretty much--is it material or spiritual?
Substance is more the composition of an object, basically an ancient notion of molecular or atomic science. No matter what gold looks like, it's gold because every atom has 79 protons, 79 electrons, and 118 neutrons. Taking away or adding electrons gives you gold ions, but if you changed the protons and neutrons as well, you'd have a completely different element.
Accidents, finally, are the appearances or physical manifestations of an object, such as gold being shiny, yellow, solid, metal, etc.
So coming back to Transubstantiation, the term literally means "a change in the substance." Usually in nature, accidents change, but substance usually doesn't. If somehow the substance were to change, the accidents would as well (such as the biblical account of Jesus turning water into wine). What Transubstantiation says is that in this miracle (the Eucharist) the substance (what makes up bread and wine) changes to Jesus Himself, but the accidents (the form of bread and wine) remain the same.
2. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. When Jesus came and commissioned His Apostles, He chose Peter as their leader, and declared that He would build His Church upon him. After Jesus rose from the dead, He again gave Peter that same mission of leading the Church by telling him to feed and tend His lambs (Jesus' followers).
Peter, in fulfilling his mission, ended up eventually travelling to Rome to oversee the Church there. In about AD 64, he was martyred by the Emperor Nero. He was succeeded by a man named Linus, who became the overseer (Bishop) of the church of Rome. He was succeeded by Anacletus, who was succeeded by Clement of Rome, and on and on, until we come to today with Pope Benedict XVI succeeding Pope John Paul II.
The Successor of Peter (the Pope) is the Bishop of Rome, who is considered primary over the other bishops of the Church. This is demonstrated even during the reign of Clement of Rome, when churches would appeal to and defer to his decisions even while one of Jesus' own disciples, John, was still alive!
As the head of the whole Church, then, as Chris said, the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit to serve and lead the Church into truth. Thus, the Church teaches that the Pope, when making proclamations about our religion that pertain to issues of faith or morals, is "infallible", meaning that the Holy Spirit prevents him from proclaiming falsehood as though it were the truth.
So okay, I've answered your vague questions by covering about every angle of them that I could think of. If you don't like the length of my answers, try asking more specific questions next time!
And if you want clarification on anything that I've written, let me know!
God bless
Gregory
"So coming back to Transubstantiation,
{snip}
remain the same."
Would it be possible for you to post or link to (as if I don't already have enough to read) reasoning and Biblical support or whatnot for this? It makes sense to me, in that it works if it's true, but at least until this instance of the word body is defined, it makes little sense at all.
"This is demonstrated even during the reign of Clement of Rome, when churches would appeal to and defer to his decisions even while one of Jesus' own disciples, John, was still alive!"
Could you source this, just to satiate my own curiousity?
Good old Greg. I like that guy. Chris, you're okay. But you're no Greg.
I have another question! I'm just full of them. I'll probably be asking them until this thing gets so long that I won't want to scroll down to read it all.
*ahem*
What's the deal with Mormons, anyway? Where did they go oh-so wrong?
I think I've had this explained to me before, but I forget things, and occasionally enjoy your lengthy answers.
A Little About Mormonism/Latter Day Saints
An important assumption of the LDS is that only a complete destruction of the church of Jesus Christ and His apostles could merit the inauguration of the LDS. This is important to note because the Mormons assume that this apostasy, or destruction of the church took place about the time of Constantine (312-337AD).[1] So for centuries people have been misled as to what a true church really is: a body of believers that function in total subordination to the Holy Spirit, worshipping God in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24).* However, Jesus said that the church would never be destroyed and that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” (Mt. 16:18). The church has endured internal and external attacks for centuries and has not fallen prey to destruction, so what does this leave us with in light of the Mormons’ assumption that the church was destroyed during the time of Constantine? To advance this concept a little more, the Mormon scholar B.H. Roberts ~ who originally submitted that the church was destroyed around the time of Constantine ~ opposes his own argument by asserting that “God left not Himself without witnesses in the earth; for there were a few in all dispensations who honoured Him and His righteous law.”[2] Still, however, the LDS church claims both opposing assumptions as the truth.
Joseph Smith, the founding father of Mormonism and the LDS church, recounted two years before his death how he started his new church. Apparently, in 1820, when Joseph Smith was 14 years old, religious excitement was extensive throughout New York State. After a series of upsetting experiences with the traditional church, he decided to ask God, based on his reading of James 1:5, which church was right for him to follow. He set out to a neighbouring wood and there, while he was earnestly praying for God to reveal some direction, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ appeared to him. Joseph Smith reports that the Father and the Son announced “a restoration of true Christianity was needed, and that he, Joseph Smith, Jr., had been chosen to launch the new dispensation.”[3] Smith, however, did not take any decisive action to verify his ‘revelation’ until 1823 when the alleged angel, Moroni appeared at Smith’s bedside. Moroni, the exalted son of Mormon (of whom the Book of Mormon is named after), bade Smith translate the ‘golden plates,’ upon which the Book of Mormon is supposedly written. To assist in Smith’s translation of the plates, Glasses ( the Urim and Thumim) were given him along with the plates on September 22, 1827, by the angel Moroni. On June 11, 1829, Smith finished translating the Book of Mormon and had five thousand copies printed in Palmyra, New York, in 1830.[4]
Upon completion of translation, the plates were taken back by Moroni, thus, no positive endorsements can be made as to whether the plates actually existed. The only testimonies external to Joseph Smith about the plates, are the testimonies of Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. These three men prayed with Joseph Smith that they might see the golden plates. Apparently ~ and their testimonies can be found in the preface to the Book of Mormon ~ an angel appeared to each of them individually so that they could witness the inscriptions on the plates. Interestingly enough, all three colleagues to Smith left the LDS church claiming that it was not God’s true church. “David Whitmer in An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887) claimed that Joseph Smith by 1833 had become a false prophet.”[5] This is undoubtedly due to the fact that God had not built Zion (the Jerusalem church) in Independence, Missouri, like Joseph Smith ‘prophesied’ He would. Citing Smith’s failed prophesy one can refer to Deuteronomy 18:20-22 wherein God explicitly states that a prophet who divines something that does not come true, is not a true prophet and should not be feared. To this day, Smith’s prophesy of Zion being built in Missouri has not come true. The LDS skirt this issue by maintaining that their move to Illinois in 1838-39 was a temporary set-back to their inevitable destiny in Independence, Missouri.
Hope that helps, and is a little more up to Gregory's standards! It's certainly not a full account of the difficulties of Mormonism, but it gives you a decent picture of their problematic beginnings, and their religious intentions.
Christopher J. Freeman
_____________________________
[1] Tingle, Donald S., A Guide to Cults and New Religions Ronald Enroth ed., (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, Illinois, 1983) p. 118
* All Scriptural references taken from the King James Version.
[2] Ibid., p. 118
[3] Martin, Walter The Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1992 Limited Edition) p. 170
[4] Tingle, Donald S., p. 119
[5] Tingle, Donald S., 119
Nate, where didn't Mormonism go wrong? Beyond what Chris related, telling us that Mormons falsely believe that The Church was "Destroyed" in Constantine's day, and that there is no physical evidence for Mormonism's claims, and that Smith's three closest disciples all defected, we need to ask the question, "What do you mean by 'go wrong'?"
If you mean, "go wrong" as in, what makes Mormonism not Christian, then we can turn to what Chris wrote about Mormonism rejecting Christian Churches as false, hence separating themselves from the Christian Church. Moreover, they reject certain fundamental Christian beliefs such as the Trinity, that God is One Being in Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Rather, Mormonism believes that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate beings.
Further, Joseph Smith claimed to be able to add to revealed Revelation, hence the Book of Mormon, which is beyond, and often contradictory, of the Bible.
Further, they believe that God was once a human being--or rather, an alien, from the planet "Kolob", who served his own god so completely, that at his death, he became God and was able to create his own world, and populate it with "spirit babies" (basically angels, given flesh, who are us). Further, they teach that if we serve God properly ourselves, when we die, we too will be given our own galaxy to be god over.
Going back to the Spirit Children idea, Mormonism teaches that before the creation of the world, somehow, God revealed to his spirit babies that a saviour would be needed. One of his angel-sons, Satan, volunteered to save the world, but God rejected him in favour of Jesus, and thus, Satan rebelled. Those who sided with Satan became demonic spirits. Those who sided with Jesus were born as white men, and those who remained neutral in the conflict were "cursed" to be born black. Thus, officially, Mormonism teaches racism--though in recent generations, they have sought to minimise that story and allow black people to become Mormon.
However, if you meant by "where did they go wrong" as in, why are they not true in a general sense, Joseph Smith's failure as a prophet, noted by Chris above, is a good indication. The lack of verifiable historical and scientific evidence (especially his teaching that the Native Americans were the "Lost Tribes of Israel" and had huge ancient societies and cities, as well as that Jesus appeared to them after He was born in Israel, have no archaelogical or historical basis in reality, and current architecture has done much to contradict these claims.
Contrast this with Hebrew and Christian historical claims, and we find that architectural and historical discoveries and documentations have gone a long way to confirm the biblical record.
I hope that gives a slightly more rounded answer to your question, balancing off of Chris' as well.
Hidden one,
I will do you one better, and present biblical evidence right here.
First of all, in the accounts of the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; and Luke 22:19-20), Jesus says "This is My body...This is My blood." He does not say "This represents" but "This is." Therefore, saying that the bread and wine only represent Jesus' body and blood is reading into what Jesus actually said.
Now, in a case like this, that could be a logical conclusion, thinking that Jesus is being metaphorical. But when we read other Scriptures on the subject, we realise that something more than symbolism is at play. For example, let's look at 1 Corinthians 10:14-22:
"For that reason, my dear friends, have nothing to do with the worship of false gods. I am talking to you as sensible people; weigh up for yourselves what I have to say. The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? And as there is one loaf, so we, although there are many of us, are one single body, for we share in the one loaf. Now compare the natural people of Israel: is it not true that those who eat the sacrifices share the altar? What does this mean? That the dedication of food to false gods amounts to anything? Or that false gods themselves amount to anything? No, it does not; simply that when pagans sacrifice, what is sacrificed by them is sacrificed to demons who are not God. I do not want you to share with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons as well. Do we really want to arouse the Lord's jealousy; are we stronger than He is?"
St. Paul here tells us that when we receive Communion, "we are sharing in the blood [and body] of Christ". He goes on to equate this act with the sacrifices of ancient Israel, in that when they sacrificed, they shared in the altar, meaning that they ate the sacrifice. Thus, Paul is telling us that Holy Communion is a sacrifice. But the book of Hebrews teaches us that Jesus Christ is our sacrifice, once and for all. Therefore, this sacrifice of Communion must be the same as that once for all sacrifice. If the bread and wine only represent that sacrifice, though, then it is either another sacrifice (which would contradict Hebrews) or it is not actually a sacrifice (which would contradict the above passage). But if Paul (and Jesus) literally means that the bread and the wine are literally Christ, then we are participating in the same sacrifice that Jesus made at the Cross. We'll come back to this in a minute.
Later on, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, Paul continues to discuss the Eucharist, scolding the Corinthians for their abuses. Paul repeats the prayers of the Institution of the Eucharist, quoting the Tradition that he received (1 Cor 11:23-25), and then says, "Whenever you eat this bread, then, and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore, anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:26-27). To answer for someone's body and blood basically means to be guilty of their murder. Therefore, to receive Communion unworthily is to commit great sacrilege against Christ, tantamount to recrucifying Him.
Paul then goes on to discuss what eating unworthily consists of:
"Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognising the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. That is why many of you are weak and ill and a good number have died" (1 Cor 11:28-30).
This, to me, sounds gravely more than simply a symbolic action, but one that can get you killed. This, incidentally, is why the Catholic Church doesn't let just anyone receive Communion, but only Catholics who believe that Jesus is really present, and who are forgiven of any mortal sins. Paul's severe warnings speak of a literalness to the Eucharist that goes beyond symbolism.
But leaving Paul, we turn back to the words of Jesus. Notably, in John's Gospel, he does not relate the actual institution of the Eucharist. Writing later on, he possibly figured that story was familiar to everyone who went to church, and decided to concentrate on the meaning rather than the act.
In chapter 6 of John's Gospel, we see Jesus feeding the 5000, and then, the next day, they seek Him out to get more bread. So He teaches them about the True Bread, Himself--the Bread of Life. At the end of this discourse, Jesus explains in what way He is the Bread of Life:
"'I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; but this is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.'
Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' Jesus replied to them, 'In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Anyone who does eat My flesh and drink My blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. For My flesh is real food and My blood real drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood lives in Me and I live in that person. As the living Father sent Me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats Me will also draw life from Me. This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever.'
This is what He taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. After hearing it, many of His followers said, 'This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?' Jesus was aware that His followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you? What if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray Him. He went on, 'This is why I told you that no one could come to Me except by the gift of the Father.' After this, many of His disciples went away and accompanied Him no more" (John 6:48-66).
We have Jesus teaching about giving His flesh and blood to eat and drink, in the most literal of terms. That this indeed does relate to the Eucharist is clear not just from the language, but also because at the beginning of this story, John tells us a small detail that almost seems irrelevant: "The time of the Jewish Passover was near" (John 6:4). Thus, Jesus is giving this discussion around the time of the Passover, which was the feast at which Jesus was crucified.
The thing about the Passover, according to Exodus 12, is that the lamb had to be slaughtered, its blood sprinkled on the doorpost, and the lamb itself had to be eaten. When I was a Pentecostal, we loved to talk about how Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose blood was sprinkled on the door of the Cross (as John himself makes clear in his crucifixion narrative). But what we overlooked was the fact that the Lamb needs to be eaten. If the Lamb is not eaten, you could pour all the blood you wanted on that door, but it was not enough.
Jesus' blood on the cross is not enough. He makes it clear in John 6 that the other half must be completed: we must appropriate His sacrifice. We must eat the Lamb. This is why, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul describes Communion as sharing in the body and blood of Christ. This is how we appropriate His sacrifice to our lives--sharing in the altar.
And this brings me back to my earlier point about the Eucharist being the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. It is the point that I tried to make clear in the Bible Study of Revelation that I posted on this blog.
In Revelation, John portrays Jesus consistently as the Lamb who was Slain. Always in Heaven's worship, the Lamb is before the throne of God as a sacrificial victim. Jesus' priesthood is one of eternally offering His self-sacrifice for our sins. There is no time in Heaven, so this sacrifice is, for lack of a better term, perpetual. And so, when we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we are literally participating in that heavenly worship described in Revelation, participating in the Once-For-All Sacrifice of the Cross as we eat the Bread and Drink the Wine which is Jesus.
And this was the universal teaching of the entire Church until Ulrich Zwingli came along at the Reformation and started teaching a "symbolic communion." But nowhere in the Bible or in Church history for the first 1500 years is the Eucharist presented as only symbolic.
As for citing the issue about Clement of Rome, here's a link to the Catholic Answers tract, The Authority of the Pope: Part 1, which quotes the early Church Fathers on the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The first quote is from Clement of Rome, about the situation that I alluded to in my last post. Notice that the date of his letter, AD 80, was during the Apostle John's lifetime (most scholars say he died between AD 90-100).
Gregory,
It is interesting that you seem to combine protestant and catholic teachings in your understanding of the Holy Communion. You state that the sacrifice was completed once for all in the death of Christ, yet at the same time it is perpetual.
The official catholic position is that it is indeed perpetual, not once for all. It is ongoing and we need to participate in it regularly.
Examples:
Council of Trent:
"Inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross...for appeased by this sacrifice[in taking communion], the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins."
"If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, let him be anathema."
Pope Pius XI's encyclical 1935:
The mass is "a real sacrifice..which has real efficacy."
Pope Pius XI's encyclical 1947:
The eucharistic sacrifice represents, reenacts, renews and shows forth the sacrifice of the cross, and "on our altars he offers himself daily for our redemption."
(Does this 'daily immolation' of Christ not take away from the once-for-all sacrifice position you suggest?)
Vatican II:
The decree on the ministry and life of Priests instructs that the priests are to instruct the faithful "to offer to God the father the divine victim in the sacrifice of the mass." and that Christ is present in the sacrifice of the Eucharist in that "he is now the same one now offering through the ministry of priest, who formally offer him on the cross."
The constitution on the sacred liturgy says that the mass is "to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centureis until he should come again."
Dom Gregory Dix, in The shape of the liturgy, rejected the idea that the death of Christ was the moment of sacrifice...rather "his sacrifice was something which began with his humanity and which has its eternal continuance in heaven."
The protestant position holds that they are to not participate in the sacrifice, as it was only Christ's to make. Instead the sacrifice that they are to offer, is themselves. Jesus was the substitute so that believers would not have to sacrifice themselves. Thus for protestants, offerings are made through Christ rather than with or in Christ. For Protestants the focus of the Holy Communion is that the lamb was once slain and is now glorified. Thus, it is a symbol, a remembrance.
Joseph, I fail to see how I have "combined" Protestant and Catholic understandings on the Eucharist in what I have written.
The Catholic Church teaches that the once-for-all sacrifice of the Cross is itself perpetual, and that in the Eucharist, we participate in that sacrifice, which, at Calvary was ultimately achieved and will not be repeated.
Yet, in the Heavenly perspective, as I noted above, the sacrifice of Calvary is eternally present and presented before the Throne in Heaven. It is this sacrificial presentation on Heaven's altar that we participate in in our Eucharistic celebration. It is not a new sacrifice, nor a repeated sacrifice, but one that is re-presented not to God, but to us, who were not there when Jesus died.
Your numerous examples of Catholic teaching actually do not deny that Christ's offering Himself on the cross was a once-for-all offering. They simply emphasise that in the Mass, it is a true sacrifice--not a different one--but the same one, offered by the same Jesus Christ, in a different form than the Cross. The formal sacrifice (that Trent and Vatican 2 speak of in your examples) is the Crucifixion, just as the formal sacrifice of the Passover is the killing of the lamb. But the rest of the Passover sacrifice (sprinkling the blood and eating the meal) is still part of the sacrifice, just as, in the same way, celebrating Mass and receiving the Eucharist is part of the Sacrifice for our sins.
Notably, you quote the Council of Trent to say that the Mass is truly a sacrifice: "Inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross..." I'm very curious what you omitted with your "...", because in Session 22, Chapter 1, it clearly says that the sacrifice of Calvary was once and for all, while, at the same time, proclaiming the eternality of Christ's priesthood in presenting that same sacrifice:
"Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,--declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of [Page 154] Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles; and which the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, has not obscurely indicated, when he says, that they who are defiled by the participation of the table of devils, cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord; by the table, meaning in both places the altar. This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, during the period of nature, and of the law; in as much as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all."
Which, you'll note, is basically what I had said above.
What is it that makes a priest a priest, except his role to offer sacrifice to God? Thus, Jesus, our eternal High Priest, never ceases offering Himself for us, though the physical crucifixion happened once in time, because the moment Jesus ceases offering the sacrifice to God, He ceases to be the eternal high priest, and we cease to reap the benefits of Calvary.
As such, then, in the Eucharist, we participate in that offering.
You write:
The protestant position holds that they are to not participate in the sacrifice, as it was only Christ's to make.
The sacrifice, according to St. Anselm in Cur Deus Homo? was really, only ours to make, but only Christ could make it. Christ became a man precisely because it was up to men to pay their debt, but only a sacrifice of infinite worth could repay the infinite offence of humanity's sin--hence the need for the God-Man. So I reject your proposition that the sacrifice was only Christ's to make. It is not something that we could do, but it is something we must do. Christ came and made the sacrifice, but it still must be appropriated by us.
Instead the sacrifice that they are to offer, is themselves. Jesus was the substitute so that believers would not have to sacrifice themselves.
You here have contradicted yourself. Romans 12:1 clearly tells us that we must offer ourselves. So are we to offer ourselves, or did Jesus do that for us?
Where does the Bible teach us that Christ's sacrifice leaves us without a thing to do?
Thus for protestants, offerings are made through Christ rather than with or in Christ.
For Catholics, it is Christ who makes the sacrifice, and we participate in it by uniting ourselves to Him. We are incapable of making the sacrifice, but unless we incorporate ourselves into Christ, His sacrifice does not apply to us. This is why we are made into the Body of Christ, and we eat the one bread and drink the one cup (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
For Protestants the focus of the Holy Communion is that the lamb was once slain and is now glorified. Thus, it is a symbol, a remembrance.
But where does the Bible teach any of that? This seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the Cross.
The Lamb who was slain was glorified in the sacrifice, not after it. Jesus was not glorified after He was crucified.
This is why Revelation depicts Jesus as the Lamb who was slain:
"'Look, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed, and so he will open the scroll and its seven seals.'
Then I saw, in the middle of the throne with its four living creatures and the circle of the elders, a Lamb standing that seemed to have been sacrificed; it had seven horns, and it had seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits that God hsa sent out over the whole world. The Lamb came forward to take the scroll from the right hand of the One sitting on the throne, and when he took it, the four living creatures prostrated themselves before him and with them the twenty-four elders; each one of them was holding a harp and had a golden bowl of full of incense which are the prayers of the saints. They sang a new hymn:
You are worthy to take the scroll
and to break its seals,
because you were sacrificed, and with your blood
you bought people for God
of every race, language, people and nation..."
This is why Jesus said "And when I am lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). John says in the very next verse, "By these words he indicated the kind of death he would die."
This is why Catholics use Crucifixes: because it was Christ's death that accomplished it all. We do not remember a slain Christ who was then glorified, but we remember a Glorious Christ who died for us, and in so doing, revealed His glory. As Philippians 2:5-11 makes clear, Christ's humility and His glory are one and the same. And as the next two verses make clear, we need to work out His sacrifice in our lives for our salvation--but that it is not by ourselves that we do this, but through the life of grace that God has given us through that same sacrifice (Philippians 2:12-13).
Now, if I continue on, I'll just begin rambling, so I'm going to stop there for now. Anything unclear, feel free to ask.
God bless
Gregory
Ok, you had me with the first mention of the Corinthians passage, which I had not read. (Or, at least, read before I understood.) You about ten-upped me on that one. *thumbsup.
"This, incidentally, is why the Catholic Church doesn't let just anyone receive Communion, but only Catholics who believe that Jesus is really present, and who are forgiven of any mortal sins."
That makes sense, but it seems neither to catch everyone, or allow all who should to receive Communion. After all, are there not Protestants who fulfill those requirements (aside from being Catholic)? And how does one prove that they have been met? I realize that this might be a case of 'go-with-the-best-we-have,' but there seems to be precious little of that in Catholic theology, at least as you present it.
Now, as I think it was (sadly) misssed, I'll repeat one fo the parts of my last post-""This is demonstrated even during the reign of Clement of Rome, when churches would appeal to and defer to his decisions even while one of Jesus' own disciples, John, was still alive!"
Could you source this, just to satiate my own curiousity?"
One more question-what's up with Luther? Was he misguided, misinterpreted, everything his (Catholic) opponents said he was, or what? He certainly was not perfect, and I know that his theology was flawed, (forgetting exact examples, at the moment,) but was the Catholic Church completely in the right? Was Luther's nailing-the-theses-to-the-church the act of a heretic?
Thanks in Advance for everything.
Sincerely,
~The Hidden One~
Hey Hidden One.
I'll start with Clement. You seem to have missed the link that I provided, in which the first quote is a letter from Clement, written to the Church at Corinth while the Apostle John was alive, to settle a dispute that had arisen there about leadership.
The key thing to note in the quotation is that the Corinthian Church had written to Clement to ask about the problems they were having, even though Ephesus (where John was) was geographically closer than Rome, and John was an Apostle. This shows that even then, the Bishop of Rome has precidence. Here's the link again:
The Authority of the Pope: Part 1
As to your question about who can receive Communion, Protestants, sadly, are out, because the majority of them do not believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Of those that do, some don't believe that the Eucharist is truly a sacrifice for sin. And those who do still aren't in full unity with the Catholic Church, and since the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Unity (1 Corinthians 10:17), allowing those to participate who aren't in union with the Church is ignoring that central truth to the Sacrament.
As for Catholics, when a Catholic has fallen into Mortal Sin (which means, they've done something that's gravely evil, with full knowledge and assent of their will), they need to partake of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (go to Confession) to be forgiven. Thus, if a Catholic is in a state of Mortal sin, and has not gone to Confession, he should not receive Communion.
Churches don't have an inquisition for each person who approaches the altar. It's up to that person to judge himself, which is why Paul tells us to examine ourselves before eating (1 Corinthians 11:28). The Church teaches not to in the case of mortal sin, and provides Confession. It's up to the individual to judge his own heart.
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "go with the best you have".
As for Luther, that's a bit of a tough case. And I haven't really studied him in depth. What I have read leads me to believe that he was a good man, who honestly thought he was doing the right thing. However, he seems to have been a bit psychologically troubled, and couldn't find forgiveness. I believe that he misinterpreted Scriptures when he started teaching his new doctrines, but even then, he wasn't completely wrong, since the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church have recently signed a joint declaration on Justification (which is where we mainly diverged).
Beyond that, I'm going to defer to my buddy Chris, who has posted here already. He was a Lutheran training to be a pastor, who has since decided to become a Catholic. So his depth of insight far surpasses my own.
God bless.
Gregory
Oops. That link does list some interesting material.
"allowing those to participate who aren't in union with the Church is ignoring that central truth to the Sacrament."
Are you saying that the Catholic Church is the only Church? As in, not-Catholics are not part of the church? If so, (and, to some degree, not,) what do you specifically mean by church in this instance? (to avoid misunderstandings-It would seem to me ludicrous that all Protestants go to Hell!)
"I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "go with the best you have.""
Use the best method for achieving you aim that you, well, have.
"As for Luther, that's a bit of a tough case. And I haven't really studied him in depth. What I have read leads me to believe that he was a good man, who honestly thought he was doing the right thing. However, he seems to have been a bit psychologically troubled, and couldn't find forgiveness. I believe that he misinterpreted Scriptures when he started teaching his new doctrines, but even then, he wasn't completely wrong, since the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church have recently signed a joint declaration on Justification (which is where we mainly diverged)."
I'm afraid that I do not know of this 'Justification' (or at least, nto by that name.)
"Beyond that, I'm going to defer to my buddy Chris, who has posted here already. He was a Lutheran training to be a pastor, who has since decided to become a Catholic. So his depth of insight far surpasses my own."
Then I'll wait for CJ.
~The Hidden One~
PS: At this rate I'll be ready to become a Catholic sometime tomorrow! (This is insane.)
Oh, one more Q. What's the Catholic stance on purgatory, (I figure someone here'd know...) and where/what is the basis for it?
~The Hidden One~
"allowing those to participate who aren't in union with the Church is ignoring that central truth to the Sacrament."
Are you saying that the Catholic Church is the only Church? As in, not-Catholics are not part of the church? If so, (and, to some degree, not,) what do you specifically mean by church in this instance? (to avoid misunderstandings-It would seem to me ludicrous that all Protestants go to Hell!)
Sorry for the confusion. When I use the term "Church" with a capital C, I am referring to the Catholic Church. So basically, I'm saying that for the Catholic Church to allow Protestants to receive Catholic Communion, it would be to ignore the fundamental issues that divide us, and thus make a mockery of one of the central meanings of the Eucharist. That was not a statement that Protestants are not Christian or are going to hell.
Catholics do hold that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ, and that protestant churches are, to varying degrees, teaching error. When there is a contradiction in doctrines, by the Law of Non-Contradiction, logically, one or both of those doctrines must be erroneous. Catholics would say it's the Protestants; Protestants would say it's the Catholics. I obviously agree with the Catholics, for numerous reasons.
But the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants, by virtue of their faith in Christ and their baptism, they are truly Christian. Whether or not a Protestant or Catholic is saved, though, is really up to God in the end :)
"Justification" is the theological term for how we are made into a right relationship with God. Luther taught that we are justified by faith alone, whereas the Catholic Church (and, we would say, the Bible) teach that our justification is based on faith and works that flow from God's grace in us.
Luther also taught that our justification is different and separate from our sanctification (our growing in holiness). He said that in justification, God declared us to be holy without making us so, and that sanctification came afterward. Catholicism teaches that God doesn't simply declare us to be holy when we are justified, but actually makes us holy--and that it isn't a onetime process. We don't distinguish between justification and sanctification.
These issues have formally separated Lutherans and Catholics for almost 500 years, but recently, Catholicism and Lutheranism have issued a joint-declaration about justification, realising that they had each misunderstood the other's teaching, and that, in a very fundamental way, we do actually agree! Not that that fixes everything, but it's a huge start!
I'll let Chris know to come and teach us all about Dr. Luther. :)
As for Purgatory, it is the belief that those who are saved, but who are not yet completely sanctified or perfect at the point of their death, undergo a final purification (that's what Purgatory literally means) before they can enter heaven.
Basically, according to the Bible, nothing unholy can enter the presence of God, or it will be destroyed. Throughout our lives, through our striving to follow Him and the things we suffer, God is purifying us from our attachments to the things of this world. Some people get farther along in this purification during their lifetimes than others. Some can die perfectly holy, and go straight to heaven, while others die with a remaining sinful attachment to the world which, while not bad enough to separate them from God, cannot enter heaven. So, in the mercy of God, He cleans us up.
This used to be thought of in terms of time (so many days or years in Purgatory), but that was mainly a metaphorical description. In the 60's, at Vatican 2, the Church decided to do away with temporal language when describing Purgatory, since, like heaven and hell, it exists outside of time. Time-related language can help, but it can also be confusing and misleading.
Basically, the Church requires us to believe three things about Purgatory: (1) that a purification after death exists, (2) that it involves some kind of pain, and (3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God.
Biblically, we see hints of Purgatory in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, about building on the rock with straw or wood or gold, and that everyone's work will be tested with fire, and that some people's work will be burned up, but that they will still be saved, "though as through fire."
We see indications of it as well in the book of 2 Maccabees, where after a battle, many troops who died were found to have carried talismans into the fight, and God judged them by letting them die. Judas Maccabee and the others offer sacrifices on their behalf, which 2 Maccabees calls a noble thing to have done
(2 Maccabees 12:41-45). Since a person in heaven has no need for prayers, and a person in hell has no help from prayers, this passage also points to Purgatory, since they're the only people who would benefit.
The doctrine of Purgatory was completely accepted by Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox, and only questioned in the Reformation.
For some more info on it, I'd recommend checking out these two articles at Catholic Answers:
Purgatory and The Roots of Purgatory
God bless
Gregory
"These issues have formally separated Lutherans and Catholics for almost 500 years, but recently, Catholicism and Lutheranism have issued a joint-declaration about justification, realising that they had each misunderstood the other's teaching, and that, in a very fundamental way, we do actually agree! Not that that fixes everything, but it's a huge start!"
What's your personal view? Just based on what you said, I agree with Luther, at least until Chris gets here...;)
I'll check out those links on Purgatory, but, for the moment, I think I (finally?) found soemthign I have a problem with in regards to Catholocism.
~The Hidden One~
Gregory, Hidden One:
It's a very interesting discussion you two are having. I'm enjoying it very much! I've seen my name mentioned a couple of times as it concerns Lutheranism and Dr. Luther. Is there something specifically that you want me to write about?
Let me know.
God bless you both,
Christopher
Hey Chris! I was gonna email you about that. Hidden One had asked the question above, "One more question-what's up with Luther? Was he misguided, misinterpreted, everything his (Catholic) opponents said he was, or what? He certainly was not perfect, and I know that his theology was flawed, (forgetting exact examples, at the moment,) but was the Catholic Church completely in the right? Was Luther's nailing-the-theses-to-the-church the act of a heretic?"
I thought you might be more qualified to answer his questions here than I am.
Hidden One, my view on Justification is that the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith and our works.
Now, that's not saying that we by ourselves can work our way into heaven. Only God's Grace can save us, but we must respond to that Grace by our faith and our works together. Faith alone (in the typical Protestant understanding of that phrase) won't cut it. In fact, the only time in the Bible that the phrase "faith alone" is used, is in James 2, and he's saying faith alone doesn't work (pun intended).
The Catholic view is that which is summed up nicely in Philippians 2:12-13: "Therefore, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who, for His own generous purpose, is at work in you, giving you the will and the power to work."
It's always been my understanding that someone with Faith would do 'Works' as a direct result of this-and, I guess, you having explained that accepting Jesus into one's heart and such (praying) being works, if I udnerstood correctly, I guesss I nominally agree with you.
Hidden One said:
It's always been my understanding that someone with Faith would do 'Works' as a direct result of this-and, I guess, you having explained that accepting Jesus into one's heart and such (praying) being works, if I udnerstood correctly, I guesss I nominally agree with you.
The typical Protestant understanding is that when a person puts their faith in Jesus, he is saved. Afterward, that person lives out the life of a saved Christian, doing the good works that Jesus expects of us because Jesus is in us and working through us. However, these works do not actually affect our salvation or contribute to it. "Salvation" was a thing that happened once, when they "asked Jesus into their hearts". The works, they say, might prove that they are in fact saved, but they don't make you saved.
Catholics, on the other hand, teach that at the moment of baptism, we are justified, our sins are forgiven, and we begin to live the Christian life, growing in holiness. However, this justification at baptism isn't a one-time shot, but it is the beginning of our justification. Just as being born isn't the be-all and end-all of life, being "born again" isn't the sum total of our Christian life. It is only the beginning. And just as "escaping our mother's womb" isn't enough to keep living, simply being baptised isn't enough to stay spiritually alive. We must continue in faith and in works in order to stay in a right relationship with God, and thereby be saved and go to heaven.
What does the Bible say?
The first question we need to ask is, does the Bible teach that salvation is a single event, occurring once in the past, or is it an ongoing thing, begun in the past, but not finished until we actually arrive in Heaven?
Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Acts 2:47; 15:11; Romans 5:9, 10; 1 Corinthians 3:15; 5:5, and others, all put salvation as a "not yet", but a "will be" saved. While other verses teach about having been saved, in the past tense, we must read all of Scripture together. Thus, there is a sense in which we are saved already, but another sense whereby we must continue to endure in order to be saved (Matthew 10:22).
This is why Catholicism professes that "we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved." We recognise that our initial justification, while hugely important, is not the final word of the story, but our final destination depends on how we live day to day for Christ.
St. Paul himself makes this very clear when speaking of himself in Philippians:
"Yes, I will go further: because of the supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, I count everything else as loss. For him I have accepted the loss of all other things, and look on htem all as filth if only I can gain Christ and be given a place in him, with the uprightness I have gained not from the Law, but through faith in Christ, an uprightness from God, based on faith, that I may come to know him and the power of his resurrection, and partake of his sufferings by being moulded to the pattern of his death, striving towards the goal of the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have secured it already, nor yet reached my goal, but I am still pursuing the prize for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not reckon myself as having taken hold of it; I can only say that forgetting all that lies behind me, and straining forward to what lies in front, I am racing towards the finishing-point to win the prize of God's heavenly call in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:8-14).
Thus the great Apostle Paul himself does not consider himself to be "saved", but is still pressing on towards that goal.
If this is then the case, our question turns to what means effect our salvation: faith alone, or faith and works. Do the good works that we as Christians do pertain to our final salvation, or are they secondary "proofs" that of themselves have no direct bearing on it?
Protestants love to cite Ephesians 2:8-9 as proof of Faith Alone: "Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit." However, there are two things to note here. #1 is that St. Paul says that salvation is by grace, which Catholics wholeheartedly agree with, and that that grace demands a faith response. But he never says "faith alone". When he says our own works have nothing to do with it, he is contrasting that with God's grace, not our faith. Therefore, it is God's grace, not our works, that save us, but we must respond to that grace by our faith and our works. This leads to point #2: When Protestants cite this passage as "proof", they invariably omit verse 10: "We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life." So the question is, if God has made good works part of His will for us, can we still be saved if we fail to do His will?
Moreover, in James 2:14-26, James writes a thorough essay on the necessity of works and faith together in order to save us. He calls faith "dead" that has no works. He says that such dead faith cannot save us. Some Protestants make the point that there's "Dead faith" and "living faith", and that we need living faith, that is "proven" by accompanying works. But the text of James doesn't contrast "dead faith" and "living faith." It contrasts faith with no faith, which he terms dead faith. Saying that dead faith is still a type of faith, is like saying that a false god is still a god nevertheless.
Moreover, every time that Scripture mentions the Last Judgement, and how people will be judged worthy of heaven or hell, it never says "Those with faith will go to heaven" but, "God will render each one according to his deeds."
"He will repay everyone as their deeds deserve. For those who aimed for glory and honour and immortality by persevering in doing good, there will be eternal life; but for those who out of jealousy have taken for their guide not truth but injustice, there will be the fury of retribution" (Romans 2:6-7).
Jesus says the same thing throughout Matthew 24 and 25. Moreover, reading through the Sermon on the Mount will reveal that in all Jesus' talk about being saved and gaining the Kingdom of Heaven, He never once mentions faith, but mentions living the Gospel over and over again (Matthew 5-7).
Thus, it seems that the Protestant notion of "Faith Alone" is amply contradicted, and nowhere taught, in the Bible. In fact, a search for the phrase "faith alone" at Blue Letter Bible will yield only one result: James 2:17, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
The Bible is clear and plain, and the conclusion, to me, is inescapable.
God bless
Gregory
"The typical Protestant understanding is that when a person puts their faith in Jesus, he is saved. Afterward, that person lives out the life of a saved Christian, doing the good works that Jesus expects of us because Jesus is in us and working through us."
Well, for the moment, 'tis mine.
"However, these works do not actually affect our salvation or contribute to it. "Salvation" was a thing that happened once, when they "asked Jesus into their hearts". The works, they say, might prove that they are in fact saved, but they don't make you saved. "
Yup.
"What does the Bible say?
The first question we need to ask is, does the Bible teach that salvation is a single event, occurring once in the past, or is it an ongoing thing, begun in the past, but not finished until we actually arrive in Heaven?"
I'm about to have a Biblically-inspired radical change in opinion, (again,) aren't I?
"Yes, I will go further: because of the supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, I count everything else as loss. For him I have accepted the loss of all other things, and look on htem all as filth if only I can gain Christ and be given a place in him, with the uprightness I have gained not from the Law, but through faith in Christ, an uprightness from God, based on faith, that I may come to know him and the power of his resurrection, and partake of his sufferings by being moulded to the pattern of his death, striving towards the goal of the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have secured it already, nor yet reached my goal, but I am still pursuing the prize for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not reckon myself as having taken hold of it; I can only say that forgetting all that lies behind me, and straining forward to what lies in front, I am racing towards the finishing-point to win the prize of God's heavenly call in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:8-14)."
I think I've read this passage before, worded differently. What Bible translation are you using?
"Thus the great Apostle Paul himself does not consider himself to be "saved", but is still pressing on towards that goal."
Maybe its the wording of the verses, but I see the 'goal' as getting into Heaven, not Salvation.
"When he says our own works have nothing to do with it, he is contrasting that with God's grace, not our faith. Therefore, it is God's grace, not our works, that save us, but we must respond to that grace by our faith and our works. This leads to point #2: When Protestants cite this passage as "proof", they invariably omit verse 10: "We are God's work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life." So the question is, if God has made good works part of His will for us, can we still be saved if we fail to do His will?"
I still disagree with that interpretation-agreeing instead with the 'Protestant' version. (And, just because something is left out does not make it something not considered.)
"Moreover, in James 2:14-26, James writes a thorough essay on the necessity of works and faith together in order to save us. He calls faith "dead" that has no works. He says that such dead faith cannot save us. Some Protestants make the point that there's "Dead faith" and "living faith", and that we need living faith, that is "proven" by accompanying works. But the text of James doesn't contrast "dead faith" and "living faith." It contrasts faith with no faith, which he terms dead faith. Saying that dead faith is still a type of faith, is like saying that a false god is still a god nevertheless."
Hmmmm...must read James soon. I really haven't ead much, if any of it, ever.
"God will render each one according to his deeds."
I've never figured that one out myself. Its always been confusing for me.
"The Bible is clear and plain, and the conclusion, to me, is inescapable."
Our final conclusions are similar-everything else is majorly different-for now. This discussion has been fun, and I hope it continue to be enjoyable.
~The Hidden One~
Hey Hidden One, I'm going to point by point reply to you. Your post above is italicised and my responses are in normal type. I'm going to delete most of the places where you quote me, unless my original words were needed for it to make sense.
Hidden One said...
"The typical Protestant understanding is that when a person puts their faith in Jesus, he is saved. Afterward, that person lives out the life of a saved Christian, doing the good works that Jesus expects of us because Jesus is in us and working through us."
Well, for the moment, 'tis mine.
I'm glad I didn't misrepresent it.
"However, these works do not actually affect our salvation or contribute to it. "Salvation" was a thing that happened once, when they "asked Jesus into their hearts". The works, they say, might prove that they are in fact saved, but they don't make you saved. "
Yup.
So knowing that you agree with Protestant teaching on faith alone as I presented it, we can proceed.
I'm about to have a Biblically-inspired radical change in opinion, (again,) aren't I?
Well, I honestly hope so.
I think I've read this passage before, worded differently. What Bible translation are you using?
I'm using the New Jerusalem Bible in my citations (except when I quoted James 2:17, which I copy-pasted directly from Blue Letter Bible, and is in the KJV. The NJB is a Catholic version of the Bible.
Maybe its the wording of the verses, but I see the 'goal' as getting into Heaven, not Salvation.
I don't think the wording of this text has anything to do with it. Here it is again, from the NIV:
"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."
So the question is, "What is Salvation, if it is not going to heaven?" If one is saved, he is going to heaven. If one is not saved, he is damned to hell. One cannot be saved, and not go to heaven. That is why we are saved--because through the fall, we have lost eternal life with God in heaven, and so need to be saved. So then I don't think making a distinction between "being saved" and "going to heaven" is a valid one.
If being saved is something other than going to heaven, then the debate between the two schools of Protestant thinking: Once Saved, Always Saved, and You Can Lose Your Salvation, make no sense. In the OSAS camp, once a person is saved, nothing they can do can keep them from Heaven. Hence, the profile of a blogger who has commented here from time to time: "I am 100% going to be with Jesus in Heaven!!!!!!!!!! I love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. Jesus Christ is the love of my life! If you would like to know how you can be 100% sure that you are going to heaven, Just ask!!" Obviously to this fellow, salvation and heaven are intimately connected.
On the other hand, those who teach you can lose your salvation maintain that if you fail to follow Jesus all your life, or if you outright reject Him, you can indeed forfeit your salvation, thereby going to hell when you die.
If Paul talking about attaining to the resurrection isn't talking about his final salvation, then what exactly does "being saved" mean?
I still disagree with that interpretation-agreeing instead with the 'Protestant' version. (And, just because something is left out does not make it something not considered.)
This brings up another question dividing Protestants and Catholics: Sola Scriptura. Protestants believe that the Bible Alone is the only source of authority for the faith, whereas Catholics hold the Bible and Tradition. We feel that not only does the Bible itself teach the necessity of Tradition, but this Tradition is how we can be sure of the authoritative interpretation of the Bible. Protestants who practice Sola Scriptura are told that we must believe the Bible Alone, and that traditions are secondary--but the problem is, the Bible needs to be interpreted, and Protestants are left with the question, as you have brought up, "Who's interpretation is correct?" If we leave the Bible as the final authority, it cannot answer whether your interpretation is better than mine, or mine is better than yours. How then do we judge? I've attended Bible College and have a Diploma of Biblical Studies. But Doctors of Theology disagree with me (and each other) over the interpretation of Scripture, so education helps, but does not solve our dilemma. But this is a discussion for later.
For now, let us look at the context of Ephesians 2:8-10: Limiting ourselves just to Chapter 2, we see that the point Paul is making is that we have all sinned, and in our sins have accrued a debt that we could never pay back, no matter how many good things we did, but, in verse 5, Paul tells us that even though we haven't done anything to deserve it, God has chosen to save us anyway, by His grace. Then, in verses 8-10, he tells us that while it is God's grace that saves us, and not anything that we have done (since in the beginning of the chapter, Paul is saying all we have done is screw things up), we still need to respond to that grace, in faith, and by doing the works that God has destined for us. Up until the discussion of our response in 8-10, Paul does not even mention faith, but contrasts God's grace with our sinful works.
The rest of chapter 2 explains how the Ephesian Gentiles have been made one with the Jews, God's Covenant People, through Jesus. Chapter 3 builds on this theme, and chapters 4-6 apply this theme of reconciliation to God in terms of the works that we are now responsible to carry out--Ephesians 4:1 establishing this new theme: "I, the prisoner in the Lord, urge you therefore to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you were called." This goes right alone with Chapter 2 verse 10. That Protestants always omit verse ten when trying to convince Catholics of Faith Alone really does say something. You say that it doesn't mean that they haven't considered it, but quite honestly, verse 10 contradicts Faith Alone. Or do we not have to do God's Will to be saved? You never answered that question.
Hmmmm...must read James soon. I really haven't ead much, if any of it, ever.
I'll make it easy: Here's James 2:14-26, in the NIV again:
"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."
"God will render each one according to his deeds."
I've never figured that one out myself. Its always been confusing for me.
I suggest that it has always been confusing for you because it is a clear example of Scripture contradicting your belief in Faith Alone. As a Protestant, you believe that Faith Alone is true, and taught in the Bible, and since the Bible doesn't contradict, this passage, while seeming to contradict Faith Alone, really must not. But because there really isn't any way around it, the verse, which is crystal clear, remains "confusing." It is not the Bible being contradictory or wrong. The error is with Faith Alone.
"The Bible is clear and plain, and the conclusion, to me, is inescapable."
Our final conclusions are similar-everything else is majorly different-for now. This discussion has been fun, and I hope it continue to be enjoyable.
~The Hidden One~
As do I. I hope you consider my questions and my points. I have a few more questions. If all we need to be saved is faith, why does the Bible teach that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:20)? Why does Jesus say that we must receive the Eucharist to be saved (John 6:53,54)? Why does Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor, in order to be saved, rather than telling him to just have faith in Jesus (Mark 10:17-22)? And why does Jesus teach that at the last judgement, people will be judged based on their service to others, rather than their faith in Him (Matthew 25:31-46)?
"I'm using the New Jerusalem Bible in my citations (except when I quoted James 2:17, which I copy-pasted directly from Blue Letter Bible, and is in the KJV. The NJB is a Catholic version of the Bible."
I've never understood why there are denominational versions of the Bible.
"f Paul talking about attaining to the resurrection isn't talking about his final salvation, then what exactly does "being saved" mean?"
Being born again and, upon death, going to Heaven?
"This brings up another question dividing Protestants and Catholics: Sola Scriptura. Protestants believe that the Bible Alone is the only source of authority for the faith, whereas Catholics hold the Bible and Tradition. We feel that not only does the Bible itself teach the necessity of Tradition, but this Tradition is how we can be sure of the authoritative interpretation of the Bible. Protestants who practice Sola Scriptura are told that we must believe the Bible Alone, and that traditions are secondary--but the problem is, the Bible needs to be interpreted, and Protestants are left with the question, as you have brought up, "Who's interpretation is correct?" If we leave the Bible as the final authority, it cannot answer whether your interpretation is better than mine, or mine is better than yours. How then do we judge?"
Pray about it, lots. And, while Tradition is a good source of stuff, Tradition isn't always perfect.
"Or do we not have to do God's Will to be saved? You never answered that question."
I believe that if you have accepted him, you will do His Will, making the question of Faith or Faith+Works academic, from this angle, as I see it.
"I'll make it easy: Here's James 2:14-26, in the NIV again:"
I believe that dead faith was not or is not, (still not sure which side on the OSAS/OSNAS debate,) real faith. Not the most rock-solid of theorems, I know, but it is what I believe, trash or otherwise.
"I suggest that it has always been confusing for you because it is a clear example of Scripture contradicting your belief in Faith Alone. As a Protestant, you believe that Faith Alone is true, and taught in the Bible, and since the Bible doesn't contradict, this passage, while seeming to contradict Faith Alone, really must not. But because there really isn't any way around it, the verse, which is crystal clear, remains "confusing." It is not the Bible being contradictory or wrong. The error is with Faith Alone."
Mayhap. My confusion and such does stem from the (inevitable?) Inequality-in-Heaven result of Faith alone and that verse. But I don't know everything, and even this is giving me a headache. (A good one, but one nonetheless.)
"As do I. I hope you consider my questions and my points."
I do, I did, and I know you do the same for me. That's what makes this enjoyable.
"If all we need to be saved is faith, why does the Bible teach that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:20)? Why does Jesus say that we must receive the Eucharist to be saved (John 6:53,54)?"
I don't know.
"Why does Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor, in order to be saved, rather than telling him to just have faith in Jesus (Mark 10:17-22)?"
You know, you nearly had me give you a response where I argued on your side. Now i'm really ocnfused, and I know why you think why. :)
"And why does Jesus teach that at the last judgement, people will be judged based on their service to others, rather than their faith in Him (Matthew 25:31-46)?"
Because love is greater than Faith. Why? Because all the Faith on God's part in everywhere doesn't get us in heaven, but the greatest act of Love ever done does? Because faith needs love to be shown to be true? Because most people would rather be with a lvoing person than a major faith not-love prson? (Though I sometimes wonder how that would be possible.)
~The Hidden One~
The Hidden One,
"Pray about it, lots. And, while Tradition is a good source of stuff, Tradition isn't always perfect.
Well, honestly, the first aim of Tradition, be it Protestant or Catholic tradition, is not to be perfect, but to point the believer into greater communion with God. If a tradition is perfect (and I think some traditions are), then it is incidental to its practice, and a direct result of its biblical veracity.
I'm still thinking about a response to the questions raised on Luther. Sorry it's taking so long, but they are huge questions. So huge, in fact, that The Book of Concord centres around them (minus Luther's emotional instability), and many hundreds of volumes of theology have been written regarding them. It's hard to condense that sort of reality, you know? :^)
I'll check in later.
God bless you,
Christopher
"I'm still thinking about a response to the questions raised on Luther. Sorry it's taking so long, but they are huge questions. So huge, in fact, that The Book of Concord centres around them (minus Luther's emotional instability), and many hundreds of volumes of theology have been written regarding them. It's hard to condense that sort of reality, you know? :^)"
Well, not quite know, but more so semi-understand. I appreciate everything you have doen and will do on the Luther issue.
"then it is incidental to its practice, and a direct result of its biblical veracity."
I, myslef, always try to find out the biblical opinion on everything I come across. It is hard, because the Bible is intrepreted in so many idfferent ways, and i do not know as much about it as I wish I did, by a long shot. consequently, while I will not immediately discard something I cannot find Biblical support for, I will not hold it as Ultimate Truth. And anything (I believe) contradictory to the Bible goes out the window. Whcih is why I've changed my position a lot duirng this discussion, but when unsure, I do nto hesitate in saying so.
~Hidden One~
Hey Hidden One. Same format as before...
I've never understood why there are denominational versions of the Bible.
Unfortunately, ever since even before the Reformation, people have been adding interpretive spins to their translations of the Bible (like the much-vaunted John Wycliffe). These translations were and are often inaccurate, and so condemned by the Catholic Church (for example, when Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, he added the word "Alone" to Romans 3:28, effectively making it teach something new).
Often different denominations translate the Bible in ways that inadvertently highlight their own doctrinal distinctives (such as predestination, for example. Compare the New King James Version's rendering of Revelation with the New American Standard Version's. Are our names written in the Lambs's book of life from before the foundation of the world, or was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world?
When I mention that the New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic Bible, though, I specifically mean that it was commissioned by the Catholic Church, translated by Catholic Bible Scholars, and includes the 7 "apocryphal" books of the Old Testament that Catholics accept as Bible and Protestants don't. Because it's specifically Catholic, though, I find not too many Protestants have ever heard of it, which is why I mentioned to you that it was a "Catholic" Bible.
"then what exactly does 'being saved' mean?"
Being born again and, upon death, going to Heaven?
Isn't that how I defined it? But "being born again" doesn't necessarily mean you'll get to heaven (unless you decide to believe in OSAS), since Paul, who was obviously "born again" himself did not believe that he was sure he would get to heaven. So since we define "being saved" the same way, I fail to see the discrepancy.
"If we leave the Bible as the final authority, it cannot answer whether your interpretation is better than mine, or mine is better than yours. How then do we judge?"
Pray about it, lots. And, while Tradition is a good source of stuff, Tradition isn't always perfect.
The problem with your answer as I see it, Hidden One, is that Protestants have been advocating that approach since the beginning of the Reformation, and yet Protestantism has continued to split and divide and disagree over the proper interpretation of that Scripture. According to the Oxford Christian Encyclopedia, there are over 20,000 denominations of Protestantism! Why? Because Sola Scriptura has provided no authoritative basis for determining the correct interpretation of Scripture. "Pray about it, lots" sounds good, and spiritual, but I assume that we've both done that, and still, we have arrived at different conclusions about what the Bible says on the matter of Justification by Faith Alone. So then, where do we turn?
As for Tradition not being perfect, what Chris said above is excellent. But I would like to build on it. We believe that the Bible is perfect and inerrant not because the Bible says that it is perfect and inerrant, but because it claims to be inspired by God--God's Word. And since God is perfect, and cannot lie or make a mistake, then His Word must be perfect, too.
So then, if the Bible refers to something other than the Bible as "The Word of God" then that Word of God must also be perfect, right?
Well, turn in your Bible to 1 Thessalonians 2:13:
"Another reason why we continually thank God for you is that as soon as you heard the word that we brought you as God's message, you welcomed it for what it really is, not the word of any human being, but God's Word, a power that is working among you believers."
Scholars agree that 1 Thessalonians was probably the first book of the New Testament to be written, so the word that Paul brought wasn't the Bible, but his preaching--his spoken word. Compare this verse with 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
"Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Here, Paul is commanding the Thessalonians to follow as binding the Traditions, whether he wrote them down, or just preached them. So then if the preached word of Paul and the Apostles is binding Tradition, and it is also the Word of God, then that Tradition is, as said above, perfect and inerrant.
Now, the questions here are 2: Did God preserve that Tradition perfectly to the present time, and Who has that Tradition? According to Isaiah 55:11, "So it is with the word that goes out from My mouth: it will not return to Me unfulfilled or before having carried out My good pleasure and having achieved what it was sent to do."
If the purpose of God's Word is to save souls and lead them to Him, then His Word is still actively accomplishing its job, and is not finished. Moreover, God wrote the Bible through sinful human beings, and yet, it is still perfect. Why then could God not preserve His Word in Tradition through other sinful human beings?
So if it is biblical and logical to assume that God has preserved a perfect Tradition, who has it? The Catholic Church, that has existed from the beginning, and values Apostolic Tradition as being a form of God's Word, or the Protestant churches who arrived on the scene some 1500 years after the founding of Christianity, and who each have their own one of 20,000 traditions of biblical interpretation, and which view "Tradition" as either an imperfect addition to the faith, or something to be suspicious of or rejected outright?
"Or do we not have to do God's Will to be saved? You never answered that question."
I believe that if you have accepted him, you will do His Will, making the question of Faith or Faith+Works academic, from this angle, as I see it.
I agree, from this angle. But the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is so crucial to Protestantism that Luther himself remarked that the whole Reformation stands or falls on this issue. If there is no difference at all, then why are there Protestant Churches? If it's just word-games, then why do you have trouble accepting one understanding in favour of the other?
I believe that dead faith was not or is not, (still not sure which side on the OSAS/OSNAS debate,) real faith. Not the most rock-solid of theorems, I know, but it is what I believe, trash or otherwise.
If "dead faith" is not faith (is there such a thing as "false faith" that would be opposed to "real faith"?), then what James is saying is what I wrote, that there is no faith unless there are works. Therefore, works are necessary for salvation. Faith and Works are not two different things, but rather, two different sides of the same coin. One's the Queen, the other is the Loon...you know what I mean.
"I suggest that it has always been confusing for you because it is a clear example of Scripture contradicting your belief in Faith Alone. As a Protestant, you believe that Faith Alone is true, and taught in the Bible, and since the Bible doesn't contradict, this passage, while seeming to contradict Faith Alone, really must not. But because there really isn't any way around it, the verse, which is crystal clear, remains "confusing." It is not the Bible being contradictory or wrong. The error is with Faith Alone."
Mayhap. My confusion and such does stem from the (inevitable?) Inequality-in-Heaven result of Faith alone and that verse. But I don't know everything, and even this is giving me a headache. (A good one, but one nonetheless.)
I think the only thing to do is to consider other possible interpretations of that passage, and see if they make sense according to its context. For myself, the Catholic interpretation is the only one that I think makes sense of the whole passage.
"If all we need to be saved is faith, why does the Bible teach that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:20)? Why does Jesus say that we must receive the Eucharist to be saved (John 6:53,54)?"
I don't know.
"Why does Jesus tell the Rich Young Ruler to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor, in order to be saved, rather than telling him to just have faith in Jesus (Mark 10:17-22)?"
You know, you nearly had me give you a response where I argued on your side. Now i'm really ocnfused, and I know why you think why. :)
"And why does Jesus teach that at the last judgement, people will be judged based on their service to others, rather than their faith in Him (Matthew 25:31-46)?"
Because love is greater than Faith. Why? Because all the Faith on God's part in everywhere doesn't get us in heaven, but the greatest act of Love ever done does? Because faith needs love to be shown to be true? Because most people would rather be with a lvoing person than a major faith not-love prson? (Though I sometimes wonder how that would be possible.)
~The Hidden One~
And I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head, Hidden One. As DC Talk would say, "Luv is a verb." That means it's an action, a work. It's something that we do. And in your musings, you've summed up Catholic teaching perfectly: it's "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6).
God bless
Gregory
Hidden One, I value your openness. And I agree with your methodology. And indeed, anything that contradicts Scripture is right out the window. The key is, sometimes something seems to contradict Scripture, but really, it simply contradicts our understanding of Scripture.
Personally, I believe, after having examined it greatly, that nothing that the Catholic Church teaches contradicts Scripture, though some of its teachings are not explicitly found in Scripture. There's the difference. Almost every single Catholic belief I can defend from the Bible, so I again appreciate your willingness to consider their understanding.
God bless.
"When I mention that the New Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic Bible, though, I specifically mean that it was commissioned by the Catholic Church, translated by Catholic Bible Scholars, and includes the 7 "apocryphal" books of the Old Testament that Catholics accept as Bible and Protestants don't. Because it's specifically Catholic, though, I find not too many Protestants have ever heard of it, which is why I mentioned to you that it was a "Catholic" Bible."
I just hope that those same...prejudices?...haven't hurt that version of the Bible.
"Isn't that how I defined it? But "being born again" doesn't necessarily mean you'll get to heaven (unless you decide to believe in OSAS), since Paul, who was obviously "born again" himself did not believe that he was sure he would get to heaven. So since we define "being saved" the same way, I fail to see the discrepancy."
I've kind of forgotten what it was, too, but I think it had something to do with Purgatory or something.
"So then, where do we turn?"
I'd say the Lord, but that's apparently cliche. None of us are perfect, so no one's understadning of the Bible is going to be perfect. And while I perhaps envy the apparent indivision of the Catholic Church, there are and have been problems with the people in it. Sexual abuse, selling reduced Purgatory, the Crusades (selling Salvation for warfare)...
I have yet to say that the Catholic Church is worse than any other, I merely wish to present and keep in mind our imperfection, collective and otherwise.
"So if it is biblical and logical to assume that God has preserved a perfect Tradition, who has it? The Catholic Church, that has existed from the beginning, and values Apostolic Tradition as being a form of God's Word, or the Protestant churches who arrived on the scene some 1500 years after the founding of Christianity, and who each have their own one of 20,000 traditions of biblical interpretation, and which view "Tradition" as either an imperfect addition to the faith, or something to be suspicious of or rejected outright?"
I admit to be leaning toward Catholicism. It seems...to good to be true, and yet weak in important areas. (Abortiona and evolution...for two.)
"But the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is so crucial to Protestantism that Luther himself remarked that the whole Reformation stands or falls on this issue. If there is no difference at all, then why are there Protestant Churches? If it's just word-games, then why do you have trouble accepting one understanding in favour of the other?"
I don't know. Why are there divisions in the Catholic Church? Protestantism itself was a division in the Catholic Church.
"but rather, two different sides of the same coin. One's the Queen, the other is the Loon...you know what I mean."
Yes, quite. And on this I think I agree with you.
" For myself, the Catholic interpretation is the only one that I think makes sense of the whole passage."
And for myself, I am unsure.
"And I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head, Hidden One. As DC Talk would say, "Luv is a verb." That means it's an action, a work. It's something that we do. And in your musings, you've summed up Catholic teaching perfectly: it's "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)."
I've given up on disagreeing with you on that point.
"The key is, sometimes something seems to contradict Scripture, but really, it simply contradicts our understanding of Scripture."
And its oft hard to tell the difference.
~Hidden One~
PS: 'Luv is a Verb' is one of my fave songs.
PPS: I'm pratty sure I'm gonna ocme out of this conversation agreeing entirely with Catholicism, but hey, it took you years, it mgiht take me awhile too.
I just hope that those same...prejudices?...haven't hurt that version of the Bible.
As do I. But considering that I believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fulness of Christian Truth, I don't see how it could hurt ;)
"Isn't that how I defined it? But "being born again" doesn't necessarily mean you'll get to heaven (unless you decide to believe in OSAS), since Paul, who was obviously "born again" himself did not believe that he was sure he would get to heaven. So since we define "being saved" the same way, I fail to see the discrepancy."
I've kind of forgotten what it was, too, but I think it had something to do with Purgatory or something.
I don't see how that can be it, since in this discussion, we haven't touched on Purgatory at all. We discussed it briefly on MSN once, but that was a separate conversation from the one we've been having here. The point was that Salvation refers to "Going to Heaven." Justification is the beginning of salvation, but sanctification, or growing in holiness, is needed; and from Paul's discussion in Philippians 3, it's possible to jump ship, or to fail to persevere.
"So then, where do we turn?"
I'd say the Lord, but that's apparently cliche. None of us are perfect, so no one's understadning of the Bible is going to be perfect. And while I perhaps envy the apparent indivision of the Catholic Church, there are and have been problems with the people in it. Sexual abuse, selling reduced Purgatory, the Crusades (selling Salvation for warfare)...
Turning to the Lord isn't a cliche necessarily, but what do we mean by that? And what does it mean to turn to the Lord when He Himself has given us His own Body in the Church? How do we turn to the Lord but reject His Church?
As for your small list of problems within the Church, the actual list is longer. But what of it? That there are imperfect sinners who cause abuses in the Church is to be expected from an institution comprised of sinful people. Jesus warned us that this would be the case when He told the parable of the Wheat and the Chaff (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).
The amazing thing is, that in 2000 years of sinners and scandals in the Church, that it has never officially proclaimed their errors as Dogma. They were the abuses of individuals, often individuals in some form of authority, yes, but they were never the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and, like the Sales of Indulgences, were being condemned by the Church even as they happened.
As for the Crusades, I think you've gotten a small dose of Revisionist History there. The Crusades originally were defensive wars, protecting the Eastern Christians from the invading Muslims (Eastern churches, who, by the way, had asked for the help!). If not for the Crusades, the world's history would have run much differently, and it's possible that we would be under Muslim control now. That the Crusaders were again, often unlearned, ignorant people, who perhaps were less "Christian" in their combat than they should have been, is a given. Their sins do not make the Catholic Church less holy or just in waging the wars. It makes them sinful people, like you or I. Fighting, or being a soldier, is not an unChristian occupation. How one acts as a soldier is sinful or not, and there was much that was sinful about the Crusades. But the ideal behind the Crusades was not itself sinful.
This is an ironic conversation in my mind, considering your email.
I have yet to say that the Catholic Church is worse than any other, I merely wish to present and keep in mind our imperfection, collective and otherwise.
The moral imperfection of the members of a Church have no bearing on whether or not the teachings of that Church are right or wrong. One must judge a doctrine based on its truth, not on the people who actually practice it. After all, one could say that by and large, Mormons are better Mormons than Christians are Christians. This would not make Mormonism true and Christianity false.
I admit to be leaning toward Catholicism. It seems...to good to be true, and yet weak in important areas. (Abortiona and evolution...for two.)
I would double-check what exactly the Catholic teaching is on these subjects. Catholicism is by and large the most hard-core Pro-Life of all Christian denominations. As for the evolution thing, officially the Catholic Church condemns Materialistic, Atheistic Evolution as false. However, they have not, on the other extreme, decided to back a literalistic fundamentalistic reading of Genesis and supported a literal 7-Day Creationism, either.
Catholic Teaching on Creation, basically is God created the world out of nothing. God created humankind in a special act of Creation. There really was an Adam and Eve, from whom all people are descended. Adam and Eve screwed things up royally. Most Catholic scholars tend to take a more poetic-figurative reading of the Seven-Day creation, though not ruling out a literal creation. The point is, the Catholic Church is not a community of scientists. Nor is religion's expertise one of science, but of faith and morals. Thus, the Catholic Church's stance on Creation is limited to where the belief in the origin of the world touches on faith and morality, and not where it touches on science.
This is not "weak", as you put it, but wise. If, after all, evolution was absolutely proven beyond doubt, then the Church would say "That's fine, as long as we understand that it didn't happen on its own, but that God was the director of the evolutionary process, and that He specifically created humankind in a special act of Creation." Just like, contrary to popular belief, it was never "Catholic Dogma" that the sun went around the earth, and Galileo changed that, so the Church condemned him. Rather, the Catholic Church did not change its opinion based upon the unproven (and mostly wrong) theories of an upstart astronomer. Once, however, the earth's orbit of the sun was proven, the Church said, "Hey, great." It was, incidentally, mainly the Protestant groups that were all up in arms and ready to burn Galileo at the stake for his beliefs.
I don't know. Why are there divisions in the Catholic Church? Protestantism itself was a division in the Catholic Church.
There are no official divisions within the Catholic Church. There is One Catholic Church, and many people who call themselves Catholic that choose to disagree with its teachings. They're "bad" Catholics, not "different" Catholics. Those who call themselves "Catholics" who have actually abandoned the faith in some way or another, are called "Schismatics". They are no longer truly Catholic, but have been excommunicated.
As for Protestantism being a division in the Catholic Church, this is not accurate. The Reformers split away from the Catholic Church, basically excommunicating themselves. They were no longer "in" the Catholic Church. Those who believe in Protestantism, who do so without having actively rejected Catholicism, can still be saved (through their baptism and faith in Christ), but they are still not formally "in" the Catholic Church.
Protestantism itself, on the other hand, is divided amongst itself. One can be Protestant (i.e., Protest Catholicism and believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura) and yet disagree with another Protestant on almost every other issue of doctrine you can think of. There is nothing resembling that kind of behaviour or self-understanding within Catholicism.
"but rather, two different sides of the same coin. One's the Queen, the other is the Loon...you know what I mean."
Yes, quite. And on this I think I agree with you.
" For myself, the Catholic interpretation is the only one that I think makes sense of the whole passage."
And for myself, I am unsure.
"And I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head, Hidden One. As DC Talk would say, "Luv is a verb." That means it's an action, a work. It's something that we do. And in your musings, you've summed up Catholic teaching perfectly: it's "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)."
I've given up on disagreeing with you on that point.
Does that mean you agree, or just don't feel like wrestling with it further?
"The key is, sometimes something seems to contradict Scripture, but really, it simply contradicts our understanding of Scripture."
And its oft hard to tell the difference.
~Hidden One~
Absolutely, which again is why we need an Authority alongside Scripture Alone. We need to be able to trust that the interpretation that we're getting is the one that God intended.
PS: 'Luv is a Verb' is one of my fave songs.
It's not really one of mine, but it was in my head because just before I replied to you, I was talking to Eric about DC Talk and we referred to it. And it fit. Musta been a God thing.
PPS: I'm pratty sure I'm gonna ocme out of this conversation agreeing entirely with Catholicism, but hey, it took you years, it mgiht take me awhile too.
That's completely understandable. Heck, I still didn't quite agree with everything by the time I signed up. I simply agreed that the Catholic Church was right in "everything else" and that they were the one God had set up as The Church. I knew that I had to submit myself to its teachings, rather than continue to try to find the denomination that "agreed with me."
When we come to Jesus, we don't reshape Him to suit our needs. He demands that we submit to Him. Why should it be any different when we approach His Body, the Church? Especially since the Bible itself calls the Church, "The pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
Besides, if you decided to convert too easily, I'd be worried that you hadn't thought it through carefully enough, like Eric, when he almost converted and then didn't (and now apparently doesn't want to consider the issue anymore).
Whatever.
God bless.
Gregory
"Turning to the Lord isn't a cliche necessarily, but what do we mean by that? And what does it mean to turn to the Lord when He Himself has given us His own Body in the Church? How do we turn to the Lord but reject His Church?"
I've mentioned praying before, and gotten the 20,000 fragments argument. That's what I was referring to. And I do not reject His Church! I do not find it to be limited to Catholics.
"As for Protestantism being a division in the Catholic Church, this is not accurate. The Reformers split away from the Catholic Church, basically excommunicating themselves. They were no longer "in" the Catholic Church. Those who believe in Protestantism, who do so without having actively rejected Catholicism, can still be saved (through their baptism and faith in Christ), but they are still not formally "in" the Catholic Church."
Before Luther quit it, it was a division. And by divisions, I mean divisions of opinion.
"Protestantism itself, on the other hand, is divided amongst itself. One can be Protestant (i.e., Protest Catholicism and believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura) and yet disagree with another Protestant on almost every other issue of doctrine you can think of. There is nothing resembling that kind of behaviour or self-understanding within Catholicism."
I've already rejected the Protestant denominations as being incorrect, I honestly do not need more reptition of reasons for someone to do this.
"Does that mean you agree, or just don't feel like wrestling with it further?"
It means I've decided that your argument is superior, and i'm going with it.
"Absolutely, which again is why we need an Authority alongside Scripture Alone. We need to be able to trust that the interpretation that we're getting is the one that God intended."
Quite true. And, no offense intended toward Catholics, past and former, I do not necessarily or inherently believe that about the Catholic Church.
"When we come to Jesus, we don't reshape Him to suit our needs. He demands that we submit to Him. Why should it be any different when we approach His Body, the Church? Especially since the Bible itself calls the Church, "The pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)."
I do not reshape it to my needs-I do not necessarily believe it to be the Full and Accurate Truth. I'm skeptical. So shoot me. I live, I live, and if not, denominational doctrine won't matter to much to me, cause I'll know who, if anyone, was right.
"(and now apparently doesn't want to consider the issue anymore)."
Too bad for Eric. Hopefully he is reading this discussion. He might want to consider it later, but being a Catholic leading a Youth Group Cell in a Protestant church he does not even attend might make things more complicated than he wants. Maybe he, like me, generally prioritizes other parts of life over theological details. In my case, initial curiousity was more important, so both won out. ;)
"Whatever."
Is True, Is noble...wait a second....
"God bless.
Gregory"
God Bless you too, Gregory.
Sincerely,
~The Hidden One~
Yo, Greg. I'm still totally wrestingly with the issue of Catholicism.
And it's not that I do not want to discuss it anymore, I just want to try and work it out on my own.
I will always come to you when I need help.
Eric, that's cool. I confess, I'd been getting discouraged recently.
Hidden One, I have to say, I have absolutely no idea what your last two comments were about--but you were tired and confused, so no worries. As for your first one, here goes:
"Turning to the Lord isn't a cliche necessarily, but what do we mean by that? And what does it mean to turn to the Lord when He Himself has given us His own Body in the Church? How do we turn to the Lord but reject His Church?"
I've mentioned praying before, and gotten the 20,000 fragments argument. That's what I was referring to. And I do not reject His Church! I do not find it to be limited to Catholics.
Praying is wonderful, as far as it goes--building intimacy with God and being used in His plan for the world. But simply praying for a right interpretation of Scripture is no sure sign that you'll get it, as pretty much every great, sincere thinker in each and every denominational stripe of Christianity would say that that is what they do. I'm not anti-prayer (far from it!) but I don't think it is enough to settle the question of who is right and who is wrong.
After all, according to Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism), he prayed intensely to God to know which branch of Christianity is true, and which he should be a part of, and God allegedly told him "none, go start your own!" Mormon missionaries will tell you to "pray" about reading the book of Mormon, and God will reveal that it's true, and many converts to Mormonism testify that when they had done this, they received the "burning in the bosom" sensation that indicated the presence of God.
People have prayed, sincerely, and gotten the wrong answer, for whatever reason. There has to be more to "turning to the Lord" than that.
As for "the Church" being limited just to the Catholic Church, it's not. All who profess faith in Christ and have been properly baptised have been incorporated into Christ. However, the Bible tells us plainly that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth." The Bible doesn't even say that about itself! As such, and considernig that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church into all truth, it seems to me that "The Church" should be doctrinally without error. Whether or not the Catholic Church is right when it makes that claim about itself, of all the denominations out there, it is the only one that actually makes that claim!
All of the other denominations out there will admit that their opinions on certain matters could be wrong, and pastors that I grew up under routinely said, "Read it for yourselves. If the Bible doesn't say what I am preaching, then I'm the one who's wrong." It sounds humble, but when the Teacher is telling the Pupil that the Pupil might know better than the Teacher, something is messed up. The result can only be doctrinal relativism and hierarchical anarchy.
If Jesus really is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then it only makes sense logically that His Body would be the Truth as well.
Before Luther quit it, it was a division. And by divisions, I mean divisions of opinion.
But Luther's opinion was condemned by the Church as heretical, and he was excommunicated for fighting against the Church with it. That is why there can be unity in the Catholic Church--it has the authoritative means to deal with dissenters. It can say "Someone who believes contrary to the Christian faith is not a member of the Church, until he repents." Protestant Churches can say, "Well, we don't believe that, so you shouldn't." But if they try to enforce discipline, that person can just go down the street to a church that does agree with him. And if he's that far out in left field that no denomination currently agrees with him, he could just start the 20,001st denomination!
Saying that there are differences of opinions in the Catholic Church is a lot different than saying there are institutional, structural divisions within Protestantism. On some issues, the Catholic Church allows for a lattitude of opinion, while on others, it cracks down and says, "no, that opinion is heresy."
"Absolutely, which again is why we need an Authority alongside Scripture Alone. We need to be able to trust that the interpretation that we're getting is the one that God intended."
Quite true. And, no offense intended toward Catholics, past and former, I do not necessarily or inherently believe that about the Catholic Church.
And that's fine. I haven't actually started to defend the Catholic claim to be that authority, only the fact that such an authority is needed.
"When we come to Jesus, we don't reshape Him to suit our needs. He demands that we submit to Him. Why should it be any different when we approach His Body, the Church? Especially since the Bible itself calls the Church, "The pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)."
I do not reshape it to my needs-I do not necessarily believe it to be the Full and Accurate Truth. I'm skeptical. So shoot me. I live, I live, and if not, denominational doctrine won't matter to much to me, cause I'll know who, if anyone, was right.
Speaking about "the Church" in general (and not any one particular form of the Church, i.e. Catholicism, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc.), we must believe the Bible that it is the source of truth. That's what 1 Timothy 3:15 means. If it was simply the partial or inaccurate truth, then it could not be the foundation or the support of the truth, or else it would be built on sand and made of straw.
So, "the Church" has to be full and accurate in its proclamation of Truth, or else the Bible is also false, and Jesus Himself becomes either a liar or powerless.
So we again come to the question of "which Church is the one that the Bible is talking about?" To answer that question adequately as "the Catholic Church" would most likely require an examination of individual Catholic doctrines that, in your present theological framework, conflict with the Bible that you know to be true.
After all, so far, we've established that a Tradition must accompany the Bible, and that a Church must actually possess the Truth. We've already examined two areas of teaching where the Catholic Church differs from Protestant ones (Faith Alone and the Eucharist) and come down on the side of Catholicism. So why don't we continue to systematically work through your concerns at this point?
Of course, feel free to go back and wrangle with anything that we've discussed above, as well.
"(and now apparently doesn't want to consider the issue anymore)."
Too bad for Eric. Hopefully he is reading this discussion. He might want to consider it later, but being a Catholic leading a Youth Group Cell in a Protestant church he does not even attend might make things more complicated than he wants. Maybe he, like me, generally prioritizes other parts of life over theological details. In my case, initial curiousity was more important, so both won out. ;)
Possibly. Or, as he commented, he's just working things through on his own. Until he'd said that, in my recent discouraged state, I'd not made that assumption.
"Whatever."
Is True, Is noble...wait a second....
LOL
God Bless you too, Gregory.
Sincerely,
~The Hidden One~
Thanks. God knows I need it :D
Gregory,
I don't want to confuse things too much, but you made the following claim:
""The Church" should be doctrinally without error. Whether or not the Catholic Church is right when it makes that claim about itself, of all the denominations out there, it is the only one that actually makes that claim!
While the Catholic Church makes this claim, it is the only one with the historical solidarity, and doctrinal consistency to make good on the assertion. Still, there is one other church that makes the same claim, even to the point where they would also say that they are "Catholicism corrected." The Lutheran Church. Hence the Book of Concord.
The difference here, as with all other Protestant churches, the Lutheran church has its identity in what it is not; namely, Catholic. It starts from a subtractive, negative position, and therefore can only build authoritative doctrine on points where it agrees (for the most part) with the Catholic church. For example, the first 21 articles of the Augsburg Confession and its defense Apology to the Augsburg Confession.
The conclusion then has to be that there is only one Church that is doctrinally without error: the Catholic Church. For her doctrines are positive assertions grounded in Scripture, Tradition, history, and the collective assent of the Magisterium. All other churches are derivative of the Catholic church, and where they disagree have to assert from a negative: we believe this because we are not that (Catholic).
The question that alarmed me most when I was considering Catholicism -- just as a sidenote -- was 'what is the point of continuing with Protestantism? Familiarity? Or are you actually protesting something? If so, what, and why?'
Food for thought. I hope you'll eat it!
Christopher
Hey Greg,
I have a question about Mormonism, I hope you don't mind answering it...
What's their deal with polygamism? Why do they do it?
Thanks a lot!
God Bless,
Remy
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"I am the king of my own salvation,
I've got magic underwear!
Polygamy's great
'Cause you've always got a date,
And if she cancels out,
You've got a spare!"
Just a little ditty my friends and I made up in college to illustrate the silliness of Mormonism.
Anyway, to answer your question Remy, very few Mormons practice polygamy anymore. It is widely held to be illegal, even in Utah where they centre themselves. Most mormons identify with the laws concerning that, and recognise the disasterous effects multiple partners has on the institute of marriage, and the psychologies of the people involved.
Strange though their doctrines may be, Mormons are not so whacked as to deny all empirical, or rational evidence!
Christopher
" Whether or not the Catholic Church is right when it makes that claim about itself, of all the denominations out there, it is the only one that actually makes that claim!"
I don't claim to know if it is the onyl one, but it certainly makes that claim! ;)
"After all, so far, we've established that a Tradition must accompany the Bible, and that a Church must actually possess the Truth. We've already examined two areas of teaching where the Catholic Church differs from Protestant ones (Faith Alone and the Eucharist) and come down on the side of Catholicism. So why don't we continue to systematically work through your concerns at this point?"
Purgatory. I know we discussed this a bit on MSN, but we did not (as I could see,) get far, and I want to discuss this in a place where I can look back upon the conversation and accurately recall what was said. Plus, you liek writing 'novels', (which I like reading,) and I wouldn't mind reading a couple on the reasoning and, of ocurse, Biblical backing of indulgences, adn the concept of Purgatory in the first place, realizing that you might be annoyed at having to repeat yourself somewhat.
"The conclusion then has to be that there is only one Church that is doctrinally without error: the Catholic Church. For her doctrines are positive assertions grounded in Scripture, Tradition, history, and the collective assent of the Magisterium. All other churches are derivative of the Catholic church, and where they disagree have to assert from a negative: we believe this because we are not that (Catholic)."
Sadly also the backing behind too many Creationists arguments.
"Strange though their doctrines may be, Mormons are not so whacked as to deny all empirical, or rational evidence!"
Too many people forget that, ahving lsot all respect for them. And anyone who has lost all respect his opponent has already lost the war; for no one and nothing is worthy of no respect - the mere act of continued existence is no small feat.
God Bless you all!
~The Hidden One~
Chris, thanks for the correction, and for the thoughtful comments regarding Catholicism's positive assertions vs. Protestantism's negative assertions.
Hey Hidden One,
I replied to your questions throughout Revelation, by the way. So here I go on this one. Sorry for the delay. I don't often get to the computer on the weekends.
"After all, so far, we've established that a Tradition must accompany the Bible, and that a Church must actually possess the Truth. We've already examined two areas of teaching where the Catholic Church differs from Protestant ones (Faith Alone and the Eucharist) and come down on the side of Catholicism. So why don't we continue to systematically work through your concerns at this point?"
Purgatory. I know we discussed this a bit on MSN, but we did not (as I could see,) get far, and I want to discuss this in a place where I can look back upon the conversation and accurately recall what was said. Plus, you liek writing 'novels', (which I like reading,) and I wouldn't mind reading a couple on the reasoning and, of ocurse, Biblical backing of indulgences, and the concept of Purgatory in the first place, realizing that you might be annoyed at having to repeat yourself somewhat.
Alright, here we go on Purgatory (incidentally, Purgatory was the third "issue" with Catholicism that I had when I was investigating it--the other two being Mary and the Eucharist. It was also the first objection that was overcome. The Eucharist was next, and became the thing that pulled me into the Church, even while I still wasn't sure about the Mary thing. I was already a Catholic by the time I figured out her completely--heck, I'm still learning!)
Purgatory is one of those Catholic doctrines that is interconnected with several other doctrines, so as we discuss Purgatory, I'll be throwing in a few other Catholic beliefs for free--either because Purgatory is a logical conclusion of belief in those things, or those things are logical conclusions of belief in Purgatory. The short list of "related doctrines" are Mortal and Venial sins, Confession, Penance, Indulgences, and Praying to and for the Dead. There may be more, as well, that might pop up.
Basically, we believe that, when we die, we will end up in one of two places: Heaven or Hell, based upon our response to the Grace that God has given to us in Jesus Christ. Those who have accepted this Grace go to Heaven, and those who reject it go to Hell. On this, Protestants and Catholics are in agreement.
Furthermore, regarding Heaven, we believe that we will be in the Presence of God, face to face with Him. We also believe (and know from Scripture) that we will be perfect and without sin, for nothing sinful will be able to enter the Presence of God. On this point, Catholics and Protestants again are in agreement.
Here's where things break down. Here on earth, none of us are completely perfect. Some are admittedly closer than others, but we all sin. Catholicism distinguishes between two kinds of sin, or, rather, two levels of severity. Compare 1 John 5:16-17: "If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that is not a deadly sin, he has only to pray, and God will give life to this brother--provided that it is not a deadly sin. There is a sin that leads to death and I am not saying you must pray about that. Every kind of wickedness is sin, but not all sin leads to death."
Mortal Sin is sin that is serious or deadly. Committing Mortal Sin separates a person from the Covenant by killing the life of Grace inside them. Basically, one who commits a Mortal Sin, without ever repenting of it, has "lost" or rejected his salvation. A person who dies in a state of Mortal Sin, outside of a state of Grace, will go to Hell.
On the other hand, some sins, according to the Catholic Church, are labelled Venial, which means light (in the sense of "not heavy", not "not dark"). These sins are relatively minor things, and do not completely kill the life of Grace in us, though they do wound it. In other words, one who commits a venial sin is still saved, but there are things that aren't quite right between them and God. However, persisting in venial sins can make them mortal, and ultimately kill the life of Grace.
Back to Mortal Sins for a second, the Catholic Church teaches that three conditions apply before a particular sin is considered Mortal (so it's not like at any moment we're in jeopardy of losing our salvation by doing the wrong thing--but on the other hand, the danger is still there and real). These are: The sin must be a grave matter. That is, it's got to be a very great evil in and of itself. Thus things like Murder, Abortion, Homosexuality, Stealing...pretty much breaking any of the 10 Commandments in some way is a grave matter. The second condition is that to commit a mortal sin, you've got to know that it's a mortal sin. If you honestly do not know that reading your horoscope and following it is a form of idolatry, thus breaking the 1st Commandment, then even though it is of itself a grave matter, you are not actually committing a mortal sin, only a venial one. Finally, to commit a mortal sin, you have to want to do it. A teenager who shoplifts a DVD to be cool is committing a mortal sin, while a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family because there is no other way, is only committing a venial sin. Moreover, certain gravely evil things, such as pornography, are also highly addicting--and the severity of the sin is mitigated (lessened) by the severity of the addiction. Again, though, just because a sin is not "mortal" doesn't make it "okay." It simply affects the consequences of that sin.
What do I mean? Well, in the case of venial sin, since we have not cut ourselves off from the Covenant, and still have the life of Grace within us, we can turn to God directly for His forgiveness. But when we commit a Mortal Sin, we have killed that life of Grace, that relationship with God, and so other means of obtaining forgiveness are necessary.
The means of forgiveness ordained by Christ is the Sacrament of Reconciliation (commonly known as Confession). In it, the one in sin goes to the Priest, who represents and stands in the place of Christ for the penitent person. In Confession, the sinner confesses his sin, and makes an "Act of Contrition", expressing in prayer that he is truly sorry for his sins. After this, the priest pronounces the Absolution (the message of forgiveness in Christ), and gives the penitent person a Penance--an act or series of acts that the sinner must do to truly repent of his sin. Often this act of Penance is directly related to the sins confessed, and acts as the first steps to turning one's life around.
I won't say too much more about Confession at this point, except to provide Scriptural evidence. There is more to say, though, and if you have questions, ask away.
Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation after His resurrection, when He appeared to His Apostles. John 20:19-23 relates, "In the evening of that same day of the week, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, 'Peace be with you,' and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so am I sending you.' After this, he breathed on them and said: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained.'"
Some things to notice about this passage: 1. Jesus sends out the Apostles on the same mission that He had come for--to preach the gospel and forgive sins. 2. Jesus breathes on them. This is important because only one other time does the Bible say that God breathes on human beings--Genesis 2:7, when God created and gave life to Adam. Hence, something extraordinary is taking place at this encounter. This breathing is followed by their mission and bestowing of authority: they are told that they can forgive sins, or not.
This means more than "they can forgive the sins of others that are done to them" because Jesus wouldn't need to especially commission them to do that. It means more than "They will preach the forgiveness of sins through the Gospel," because that interpretation doesn't take into account the "if you retain the sins of any..." part.
In the Letter of James, he describes a little bit more about how Confession works, while describing another sacrament, the Anointing of the Sick: "Any one of you who is ill should send for the elders of the church, and they must anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord and pray over him. The prayer of faith will save the sick person and the Lord will raise him up again; and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another to be cured; the heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully" (James 5:14-16).
Again, things to note in this passage. It is not just anyone who is to be called to anoint the sick, nor to receive confession, but the "elders" (in Greek, Presbyteroi, which is where we get the English word, "Priest". Keep that in mind when you read "elder" in the Bible). Now, the sacrament of Reconciliation has developed somewhat over time. In the early Church, people were to confess during the Liturgy, before the entire congregation (as the Didache tells us). However, it was still the elder, the priest, who pronounced the absolution. After several hundred years, the wonderful Irish people distilled the practice of Confession to being between the person and the priest alone, since it is the priest who represents Christ and the whole Church. Mass times got a lot shorter, and Confession became a lot more intimate. Hooray for the Irish. But the fundamental elements have always remained the same.
Finally, Penance is an essential aspect of Confession. Protestants who believe in Faith Alone tend to view repentance as a mental action of turning away from sin, but the Bible doesn't describe repentance in terms of a mental exercise. Compare the words of St. Paul, "On the contrary I started preaching, first to the people of Damascus, then to those of Jerusalem and all Judaean territory, and also to the Gentiles, urging them to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds" (Acts 26:20). Other translations say, "performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Penance are those deeds that are appropriate to repentance. If we do not perform these deeds, it means that our repentance wasn't sincere, and we are therefore not absolved of our sins.
All that, and we haven't gotten to Purgatory yet...And there's still more to go!
When we sin, there are consequences, and there are penalties. The penalties are, in essence, separation from God, and eternity in Hell, for Mortal Sin. For Venial sin, it's an injured relationship with God. The Consequences (also termed the "temporal punishments") involve the earthly effects of sin, the things that we have to repair as a result of the harm brought by our sin. For example, if I stole a car, not only will I reject God in the process, but someone won't have their car. It is not enough to tell God, "I'm sorry." I have to return the car, as well. That's Penance. Repairing the damage caused by sin.
In essence, Penance is the performance of good works that we owe. However, certain good works have been declared by the Church to "go above and beyond" what we owe. In fact, the performance of these works actually gains "merit" for us. The Church calls these things "Indulgences." Now, since the abuses in the Middle Ages that became the scapegoat for the Reformation, Indulgences have been a topic of much controversy in Catholic-Protestant discussion. So let's try to explain them.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that a person can do to "merit" or deserve salvation. We are saved solely by a free act of God's Grace. However, we must respond to that grace by faith worked out in love. But the life of Grace that God gives us energises our spirits so that the good works that the saved person does, actually do have value to God. Why? Because it is Christ that is doing them through us. But the beautiful thing about cooperating with Christ in the performance of Good Works, is that He gives us the credit! Thus, our merit before God is still only because of the Grace of God and the merits of Jesus Christ gained at the Cross. As St. Augustine said, "What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?"
So then, our merit, even our ability to merit, is a gift from God. But it is still our merit. Christ's death upon the Cross earned infinite merit, since, as God, Christ is infinite. It is these merits that are bestowed upon us, enabling us to do good works, which gain more merit. Think of Heaven as having a big bank. Theologians refer to it as the "Treasury of Merit." The Bank Account is Infinite, and when we are forgiven, it is by drawing upon the merits of Christ from the Bank of Heaven. Through the performance of indulgences, merit is added to the account.
Indulgences lessen the consequences (the "temporal punishments") of sin--basically, time off for good behaviour. An indulgence can be applied to ourselves, or offered up on behalf of a soul in purgatory, to lessen the severity of it so that they may enter heaven sooner.
During the Middle Ages, a priest named Tetzel got the brilliant, if unethical, idea of selling these indulgences for money, in order to finance the building of a church. The Catholic Church has always rejected this practice and regarded it as an abuse, so when Martin Luther took issue with it, it was nothing new. As a scapegoat for the Reformation, it was rather weak. So for the record, Indulgences=good. Selling them=bad.
When we come to Purgatory, we go all the way back to where we started, where Protestants and Catholics agree: namely, that we go to heaven or hell based upon our acceptance or rejection of the grace of God, that nothing imperfect can enter heaven, and that none of us, or at least, very few people are completely sanctified (perfected) by the time that they die.
Protestants believe and teach these things, but never seem to notice the discrepancy between them. Catholics believe and teach these things, and, seeing the discrepancy, realise that either no one will ever get to Heaven (or at least very few), or that God, in His Mercy, upon our death, gives us a final purification: Purgatory, therefore, is an extention of the salvation and the grace that Jesus gives us from the Cross.
Against the doctrine of Purgatory, Protestants allege that if our sins are not fully forgiven on the cross, then it lessens the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice. But this is a misrepresentation of Purgatory. Purgatory is not a penalty for sin (like Hell is). It actually falls under the "consequence" category that we discussed. It is the final "temporal punishment". As we said, Venial Sin, while not cutting us off completely from God, wounds our relationship with Him. This is because Venial sins indicate ties to this world--sinful habits or desires that cling to us and prevent our ultimate sanctification. Throughout our life, and the process of sanctification, these are purged from our lives through suffering or devotion and service to God. But if we die still attached to these things, we cannot enter the presence of God. And so, Purgatory completes the purging process of sanctification. So it is not that we have unforgiven sin that we need to work off; rather, we have undue attachment to the world from which we need to be cleansed.
Secondly, some Protestants maintain that Purgatory is unnecessary because once our pure soul has been separated from our sinful body at death, it goes to heaven without sin (someone actually proposed this argument when I was in Bible College). But this is not Christian teaching, but a form of Gnosticism. When we are here on earth, our bodies and souls are one composite being, and when we sin, it is an action of both body and soul together. Thus, we do not have a pure soul and an impure body.
Another accusation made toward Purgatory is that those who are not saved could work their way into heaven through purgatory. However, this again is a misunderstanding of Purgatory. Those who are not saved go to Hell, not to Purgatory. The only people in Purgatory are those who are saved but not yet completely perfected. Compare 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. All souls who make it to Purgatory will make it to Heaven.
Purgatory was often (and still sometimes is) described in terms of time (so many days, weeks, years, etc. in Purgatory), but the Church has never declared Purgatory to be a place in time. Rather, it is a State of Being, outside of time, and contemporary theological terminology reflects that. When it comes to Indulgences for those in Purgatory, we no longer refer to so much time off from Purgatory, but to "Plenary" or "Partial" indulgences. A Partial Indulgence lessens the suffering of Purgatory, while a Plenary Indulgence completely covers the need for it. I am not well researched in what gains a plenary indulgence as opposed to a partial one, but there are guidelines to it similar to the distinction between mortal and venial sins.
The final thing to note about Purgatory is its connection to the doctrine of the Communion of Saints--that is, that all of us in the Body of Christ are connected, whether we are alive on earth, or alive in heaven (or Purgatory). Those in Heaven can pray and intercede for those on earth. Those on earth can request the intercession of those in heaven, and both those in heaven and on earth can intercede and pray for souls in Purgatory, for their quick reception into the presence of God.
In fact, prayers for the dead is one of the clearest proofs of Purgatory in the Scriptures, for no one in Hell can be saved by prayer, no one in Heaven needs prayer, so the only ones who can be prayed for are those in Purgatory.
2 Timothy relates a prayer by St. Paul for a man named Onesiphorus, whom many Bible Scholars (including Protestant ones) believe was probably dead at that time: "I hope the Lord will be kind to all the family of Onesiphorus, because he has often been a comfort to me and has never been ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, as soon as he reached Rome, he searched hard for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find the Lord's mercy on that Day" (2 Tim 1:16-18a).
A more direct proof comes from 2 Maccabees 12:
"Judas then rallied his army and moved on to the town of Adullam where, as it was the seventh day of the week, they purified themselves according to the custom and kept the Sabbath. Next day, they came to find Judas (since the necessity was by now urgent) to have the bodies of the fallen taken up and laid to rest among their relatives in their ancestral tombs. But when they found on each of the dead men, under their tunics, objects dedicated to the idols of Jamnia, which the Law prohibits to Jews, it became clear to everyone that this was why these men had lost their lives. All then blessed the ways of the Lord, the upright judge who brings hidden things to light, and gave themselves to prayer, begging that the sin committed might be completely forgiven. Next, the valiant Judas urged the soldiers to keep themselves free from all sin, having seen with their own eyes the effects of the sin of those who had fallen; after this he took a collection from them individually, amounting to nearly two thousand drachmas, and sent it to Jerusalem to have a sacrifice for sin offered, an action altogether fine and noble, prompted by his belief in the resurrection. For had he not expected the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead, whereas if he had in view the splendid recompense reserved for those who make a pious end, the thought was holy and devout. Hence, he had this expiatory sacrifice offered for the dead, so that they might be released from their sin" (2 Maccabees 12:38-45).
Now, the book of 2 Maccabees is not in most Protestant versions of the Bible, but it has been accepted as biblical by the Church up until the Reformation. So the question of why did the Reformers remove it from Scripture arises, and on what authority? Of course, for a group who denied that prayers for the dead are necessary or good, eliminating the biblical record praising such actions is an effective way to do so. But the fact is, the Jews, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all believe in Purgatory, and there is more written about Purgatory by the Early Church Fathers than there is about the doctrine of original sin.
I hope that suffices as evidence for the Doctrine of Purgatory, because that was a lot of writing :p
I'd suggest, for some further reading, Purgatory and The Roots of Purgatory.
God bless
Gregory
40th Comment!
For the record, all you happy readers, as much as I'm enjoying our exchange, this post is not aimed exclusively at my having a discussion with Hidden One. Feel free to comment yourselves!
God bless!
Gregory
Gregory,
Perparing something for you and Hidden One on Dr. Luther. I can't say it will be all that in-depth since a majority of my books on the dude are packed away. That, and I'm putting the rest of my apartment in boxes for the up-coming move to Northern Ontario.
I'll have something up in the next couple of days (hopefully).
Cheers!
Christopher
Hey Chris! Thanks for that update. Looking forward to reading it.
I hope the move goes well. Too bad Melissa and I weren't able to see you and Sarah and the boys before the big day. Unless somehow there's still time...
Anyway, all of God's blessings to you.
Gregory (who's off to finish a post at Get Into the Boat
I've read through the links, but cannot reconcile this with myself. I do have a great deal of interest, however, in learning how indulgences are given.
It seems that your strongest evidence, from the Apocrypha, is my stumbling point. So, perhaps, it is nwo time to discuss the Apocrypha. What is it, why is it, when was it made, why don't Protestants believe it part of the Bible, and where can it be found in a readible fashion on the Net?
~The Hidden One~
I've read through the links, but cannot reconcile this with myself. I do have a great deal of interest, however, in learning how indulgences are given.
First, give me something to work with. Which parts are you having trouble reconciling?
As to indulgences, I would again direct you to Catholic Answers, and their two articles, Primer on Indulgences, and Myths about Indulgences.
It seems that your strongest evidence, from the Apocrypha, is my stumbling point. So, perhaps, it is nwo time to discuss the Apocrypha. What is it, why is it, when was it made, why don't Protestants believe it part of the Bible, and where can it be found in a readible fashion on the Net?
~The Hidden One~
As to the Bible, and what books belong to it and what don't, briefly, here's a history.
Over thousands of years, the Old Testament was written as God inspired prophets and other writers to record His words and His actions in the history of the Hebrew people. While most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, during the Exilic and post-Exilic periods of Jewish History, and especially after Alexander the Great spread Greek throughout the world, some books were inspired and written down in the Greek language, just like the New Testament.
Shortly afterward, the entire Old Testament was translated into Greek, which became the official Old Testament used by Jesus and His Disciples, and the Early Church. This Greek translation included all the books that Protestants have in their Old Testament, but also the books that were written afterward, in the Greek language.
The Church, using this Greek translations, often used these later books very effectively to win Jewish converts, because much of these books had beliefs in them, such as the Resurrection from the Dead, that were not fully taught in earlier Old Testament books, because the theology hadn't fully developed until later.
When Rome destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70, it caused a huge rift between the Jews and the Jewish sect of Christians, because while the Jews fought the Romans (and lost), the Christians fled to the hills as Jesus had warned them to do. This caused the Christian church to finally become fully separated from Judaism. As a reaction to the Christian Church, and to their use of the Jewish Bible to win converts, the Jewish leaders met in the year AD 90 to discuss the "Christian problem". Among the things that were discussed were the Jewish Bible itself. These Jews decided that only those books of the Bible written in Hebrew were to be canonised and accepted as authoritative for the Jewish religion, and the others were to be regarded as spurious.
Meanwhile the Christians continued to accept the entire Greek Old Testament as truly God's word. At the same time, they continued to compile and collect the writings of the Apostles to use in their liturgy as well. After a while, the question of which books of the Apostles were really Bible, and which were just good writing, and which were out and out frauds came up, and in the third and fourth centuries, the Church wrestled with these decisions, finally settling on the 27 books of the New Testament, and reaffirming the whole 46 books of the Old Testament. As such, the Church used all these books as their Bible up until the Reformation.
At the Reformation, Martin Luther, in rejecting the Church's authority, decided to put into practice the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". Translating the Bible into German, he went back to the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, and, finding those seven books missing, he rejected them himself--especially since they proclaimed doctrines that he wanted to reject. At the same time, he also wanted to get rid of James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and a few other books, because he "knew better" what books belonged. Cooler heads prevailed, thankfully, and Protestants and Catholics at least share the New Testament.
However, in reaction to Luther's rejection of those seven books, the Council of Trent authoritatively reaffirmed and declared them to be Canon, and divinely inspired Scripture.
Thus, it was not that Catholics added these books to the Bible, but that Protestants removed them. And in doing so, they rejected the long-standing tradition of Christ's Church in favour of the decision of the Jewish leaders who had rejected their Messiah.
For a more comprehensive history of this process, I'd recommend reading Where We Got the Bible, by The Right Reverend Henry G. Graham.
God bless.
Gregory
Hidden One,
Forgive the brevity of this article, please; I’m at work and it’s 5:00 a.m. This is the only real time I can dedicate to answering your questions on Dr. Martin Luther and, as such, my answers may be horribly lacking. In any case, I will do what I can but please understand that I have no recourse to any of the materials I normally would; I’m in the midst of packing my family for a large move.
You asked about Luther’s psychological wherewithal. Luther was a strange man in this regard. At once he could seem entirely rational, compassionate, priestly, and a genius of religious matters; he could also crumble under his self-imposed existential fears and seem maniacal, non compos mentis, and fit for a safe-house.
He was the son of strict parents who brought him up with a healthy dose of the “fear of the Lord, which is the beginnings of wisdom” (Prov. 1). His father was a successful miner who eventually became a councillor in Eisleben, their hometown. Being a naturally brilliant student, and an excellent musician (a master lute player), added to the pressures of a disciplinarian home-life, and the social strains of being a prominent family in the community, Luther grew melancholic.
Upon his completion of first-stage schooling, Luther was entered into university for Law, but he dedicated himself instead to the Eremetical Order of St. Augustine in Erfurt (1505), a move that deeply angered his father. While in the monastery, Luther was given to great fits of melancholy, and despair over his sinfulness. The monastic life, Luther reasoned, was the only way a person could dedicate himself to purity before God. This became the centre focus for Luther during his time in the monastery, in fact one could easily reason it became an obsession: purity meant sinlessness, but it was impossible to cleanse sin from one’s self, therefore one was always under the wrath of the holy God. For Luther, God seemed capricious, unrelenting, and implacable. And despite Luther’s ‘breakthrough’ period (1513 – 1519) – wherein he realised the Merciful God alongside the Righteous God – his unyielding recognition of the sinfulness of man, of himself, continually haunted him.
So as to his psychological stability, Hidden One, Luther was a mishmash of extremes: tempestuous and amiable, wrathful and warm-hearted, intellectually brilliant and emotionally unbridled, socially awkward and the life of the party, an educator and a rebel, polemical and diplomatic; he was, as so many great historical figures are, a case study in opposites.
You asked if Luther was as bad as the Catholic Church made him out to be. Let me be brief with this: Luther had an open mouth and a closed mind. The Catholic Church, while not being wholly innocent in their fight with Luther, did attempt to work things out with the Reformer. His writings were poured over by some of the finest scholars of the time, such as Dr. John Eck and Erasmus of Rotterdam – the latter of which also called for reform in the Catholic Church, but was never willing to go so far as to repudiate correction, or direct orders from the Magisterium – and he was ordered to give a defense of his writings, and theology in a public debate. During that debate, Dr. Eck cornered Luther in many contradictions, and won the debate hands-down. But when pressed to retract, or ‘recant’ his views, Luther refused, even though his views had been shown to be questionable at best.
In all, Luther was not hard-done-by because of his misunderstood genius, or anything quite so romantic; he was treated severely, and eventually excommunicated because of his stubborn refusal to work with the presiding Church authorities to clarify, and correct his theological works. He was labelled a heretic, as so many others before him, because he adamantly held to a private interpretation of Scripture as over above the historical, traditional Magisterial interpretation, the end result of which was an entirely new theological trajectory. That wouldn’t have been so bad, but like Marcion, Pelagius, Jan Huss, et alia, Luther had a sanctimonious side that refused to work in co-operation with Rome, and saw him rush ahead with his own self-interests and defy the Church that nursed him (e.g., burning papal edicts addressed to him, and hosting a book burning). And as parents are required to discipline their children, the Church eventually had no other recourse but to discipline Luther, thus his excommunication (which, by the way, was lifted by Pope Jean-Paul II during his First Sunday Address in Lent, 1999, if I remember right).
As to Dr. Luther’s nailing of the 95 theses to the castle door at Wittenburg, that was the academic fashion of the day. Given Luther’s extreme methods for attention getting, it’s a wonder he didn’t nail it directly to the Pope’s chair in Rome! Anyway, it was very common to issue a challenge for debate by nailing a proposal to the doors of universities, or local castles. Luther had done so once before with his 97 theses against some Aristotelian principles, but gained little attention. But when he pinned his 95 theses up against Indulgences (primarily), he received his due attention. And the rest, as is commonly said, is history!
Take care,
Christopher J. Freeman
Gregory,
I have a question: can you explain the difference between 'congruous' and 'condign' merit; and how do they relate to the life of the Christian?
Thank you,
Christopher
Chris, thanks to your reply about Luther. It's more thorough than I would have/could have been.
As to your questions about condign and congruous merit, it's a rather large (and technical) question. A good description is available in the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Merit, but it's rather long and wordy, so I'll do my best to break it down here.
Merit has to do with the reward given for an act of service. In this way, it is the opposite of crime and penalty. When one sins, justice demands satisfaction, on the two levels discussed in our description of Purgatory: Eternal and Temporal. In the same way, when a good work is performed, justice demands recompense or reward, in a similar dual-leveled sense.
The Satisfaction necessary for sin is only available through Jesus Christ, and accomplished in His death on the Cross. But we understand that His satisfaction for our sins does not automatically save us, as though we have nothing left to do. Rather, through justifying faith and baptism, we appropriate that satisfaction. Hence, we are saved from God's wrath.
However, our sins require a satisfaction through a voluntary carrying out of Penance, which is our repentance and acts of turning back to Him.
Similarly, through Christ's salutory act on the Cross, He also merited reward for His service. However, since Christ had never sinned, the satisfaction accomplished in His action served to His glory, and also applies to us (in His Grace and the infinite worth of His sacrifice). How much more, then, does the merit of His sacrifice extend beyond Him, who, as God, already possesses all things, and needs no reward? It is the merit of the Cross that is referred to as "condign merit". Condign merit refers to the reward of justice that is equal to the service rendered. As such, Christ is the only one who could demand a reward of service from the Self-Sufficient God, since He Himself is God, and, unlike us, does not deprive His being from God.
We, on the other hand, as created beings, live, move and have our being only because of God. As such, nothing that we can do earns condign merit. However, just as performing good works can satisfy the temporal punishment for sin (only through the ultimate satisfaction for sin on the Cross), so too, good works also gain "congruous merit" which refers to a reward that is given not because justice demands it, but because it is fitting.
In other words, the merits we receive for the performance of good works are not because we earned them on the cosmic scales of Justice, by putting God into our debt, but rather, because of the Grace and Lovingkindness of God, He has promised to reward those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). Thus, the merit we receive from God is God making good on His promises--but the only way we can do anything that deserves merit is because of the life of Grace within us through the merits of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.
This goes back to the Treasury of Merit idea that we discussed above, regarding indulgences and Purgatory. Christ filled the treasury with His sacrificial death. Through the new life of grace within us, Christ works in us to perform good works, which are invested in the treasury and God promises merit for us.
The rewards of condign merit are an increase of grace, heavenly glory, and an increase of that glory.
The rewards of congruous merit are various special graces, among which is included the grace of final perseverance unto salvation.
I hope that helps :)
God bless
Gregory
"As to indulgences, I would again direct you to Catholic Answers, and their two articles, Primer on Indulgences, and Myths about Indulgences."
Thankyou. They were most interesting, and tended to make sense.
"For a more comprehensive history of this process, I'd recommend reading Where We Got the Bible, by The Right Reverend Henry G. Graham."
I jsut finished Chapter Seven, and I cannot go farther, my headis spinning much to fast to be remotely healthy. I msut say, though, he had me convinced of the accuracy of the words he was saying before he ever got around to talking about what the missing books actually were, or why.
I had quite the laugh when I relalized that I've been trying to figure out whether Catholocism is in contradiction with the Bible when, at the same time, I believe the Catholic account of its creation to be true, putting me in the quandry of believing something which changes the measuring stick for the very thing which created the measuring stick.
In essence, fro anyone who didn't follow that, I believe the Catohlic account of the Bible to be true, even as said account shows the Catohlic Church to be the right one, even as I was using the Bible to measure the validity of the Catholic Church.
Yuo know, I mgiht as well jsut give up in general and go Catholic, but I have some stuff to figure out and work out yet, and I'd rather wait until I get to the point where being excommunicated from my immediate and extended family for going Catholic would not be quite as major as it currently would be.
Its amazing how stupid smart people are, and I count myself among the former stupid, if nto the smart.
"Forgive the brevity of this article, please; I’m at work and it’s 5:00 a.m. This is the only real time I can dedicate to answering your questions on Dr. Martin Luther and, as such, my answers may be horribly lacking. In any case, I will do what I can but please understand that I have no recourse to any of the materials I normally would; I’m in the midst of packing my family for a large move."
Anything I don't know is appreciated.
"His writings were poured over by some of the finest scholars of the time, such as Dr. John Eck and Erasmus of Rotterdam – the latter of which also called for reform in the Catholic Church, but was never willing to go so far as to repudiate correction, or direct orders from the Magisterium – and he was ordered to give a defense of his writings, and theology in a public debate. During that debate, Dr. Eck cornered Luther in many contradictions, and won the debate hands-down. But when pressed to retract, or ‘recant’ his views, Luther refused, even though his views had been shown to be questionable at best."
Anywhere I can find an account of this, preferably online? (Commentary optional, but English please.)
"And as parents are required to discipline their children, the Church eventually had no other recourse but to discipline Luther, thus his excommunication (which, by the way, was lifted by Pope Jean-Paul II during his First Sunday Address in Lent, 1999, if I remember right)."
Why?
"As to your questions about condign and congruous merit, it's a rather large (and technical) question. A good description is available in the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Merit, but it's rather long and wordy, so I'll do my best to break it down here."
I'd go read it, but I'm brain-saturated right now.
~The Hidden One~
I had quite the laugh when I relalized that I've been trying to figure out whether Catholocism is in contradiction with the Bible when, at the same time, I believe the Catholic account of its creation to be true, putting me in the quandry of believing something which changes the measuring stick for the very thing which created the measuring stick.
LOL. So did I, Hidden One, when I arrived at the same place. It's very much like trying to criticise the Driving Examiner's ability to drive, while he's grading your performance, or like saying that the author of a book is reading it with the wrong inflections during a public reading. And yet, so many Protestants don't see the irony of their position.
As for familial excommunication, I think Chris and I both understand that dilemma. Take your time working through the issues. You'll get there.
First-time visitor to your blog.
I, too, came out of a Pentecostal background. Now attending RCIA.
Thanks for your blog. I look forward to learning more!
"And yet, so many Protestants don't see the irony of their position."
So much irony...so little laughter.
"As for familial excommunication, I think Chris and I both understand that dilemma. Take your time working through the issues. You'll get there."
AAnd in the meantime, I'd appreciate the prayers of all who visit this blog. My 'parental relations' aren't all that great in the first place.
Sincerely In Christ
~The Hidden One~
Hi Joni! Thanks for stopping by! I hope your RCIA classes were as helpful as my own, or more so! I hope my blog will be helpful, too :D
God bless you on your journey!
Hidden One, lot's of laughter from me. I love irony. :D
And you've got my prayers!
As my Q was never answered, I'll ask it again...why was Martin Luther de-excommunicated?
~Hidden One~
I'd have to look into that. I think, short answer, it was because there were huge misunderstandings on both sides back in the day, and further study and communication have allowed the Catholic and Lutheran communions to realise that the reason for Luther's excommunication was not completely valid.
Ok, I have a question. I read that the Trinity consists of God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit. It said in spite of their differences, they are one. Afterwards, it says that The Trinity is God. How is this, when The Trinity consists of God, and the other two counterparts(Jesus and The Holy Spirit)? I would appreciate if someone could explain, to further my understanding.
Hey -lost-, glad you stopped by! Good question. It's perhaps the thing about Christianity that is most confusing, and in fact, all of the earliest heresies revolved around some aspect of the Trinity! So you're certainly not alone in your confusion.
As to your question, though, I think a lot of your confusion can be alleviated by redefining the Trinity. You see, your formula of "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit" isn't quite correct.
The Trinity, rather, is made up of "The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit." Thus, "God", in your formulation, would be "The Father", "Jesus" is "The Son", and starring The Holy Spirit as Himself ;)
When many Christians pray, saying "God", they have The Father in mind when they say God, rather than God-as-a-Whole, the Trinity. Why this is, I'm not sure. But that might account for some of your confusion.
Thus, the Trinity = Father, Son, Holy Spirit = God.
Now, here's where things get a little complicated.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God in their essence, although each is their own separate person. Thus we can say that there is only One God, and that the One God is a Trinity. There is one Divine Essence, which is made up of three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's a bit confusing, because for us people, we are one essence per one person. You have the essence of a human being, and the person of, well, you. I have the essence of a human being, and the person of me. For us, it's one to one. But for God, who is incredibly greater than we are, He is 1 to 3, or, 3 in 1. One God, eternally existing as three persons who nevertheless share fully in the one divine essence.
And that's another tricky thing about identifying the Second Person of the Trinity as "Jesus." While it's technically correct, "Jesus" was born 2000 years ago, but before that happened, He existed eternally as The Son. God did not become a Trinity at a particular moment in History, but always existed as such. With Christmas, one Person of God became a Man, in order to save us--but He became no less God in so doing, and all of God was in no way bound up in the God-Man, Jesus.
As such, the Trinity is more properly defined and understood as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are all together One God, rather than as you had it, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Formulating it that way indeed does lead to the contradiction that you saw.
I really hope I helped. If there's anything further you want to know, or if you have any other questions, feel abundantly more than free to ask!
God bless
Gregory
What's with the whole Novus Ordo controversy?
Novus Ordo refers to Post-Vatican II Catholicism. There are some within the Catholic Church known as "Traditionalists", who tend to view the changes of Vatican II with suspicion, thinking it changed too much and liberalised Catholicism. These people tend to only celebrate their Mass in Latin.
Some of these people are valid Catholics, and their beliefs are permitted. Many, however, are in Schism with the Church (such as the Society of Pope Pius X), and believe that there has not been a real Pope since Pius XII!
The problem here is that V2 was a legitimate Ecumenical Council, and its conclusions are binding. It is not a perversion of the Council of Trent, but certainly a softer and less reactionary statement. Nothing at the core has changed.
On the other hand, the problem is that many liberal Catholics also saw that V2 fundamentally changed the Church, in the same way that the Trads think it did. The difference is, the liberals wanted that change. And so in the 30+ years following V2, liberals started implementing their version of the Church in the name of Vatican II.
Now, finally, we are beginning to see the truth of what Vatican II taught. But the Traditionalists are still upset, and the liberals are getting upset.
God, help Pope Benedict XVI to steer the course of Genuine Catholicism through the turmoil.
Amen.
Ok, that makes sense.
And I amen your prayer!
Where do I start? Where do I begin?
In case some of you were wondering, I just made my decision to follow Jesus, and I honestly don't know where to start. I know that I must be baptised and ask for forgiveness, and everything like that. The thing is, where do I start? I know that the two things I listed are supposed to be together, but I dont have any resources, other than the Bible and a few sites that were refered to me by a friend. I dont have a church here, and it's too inconvienient to go to the one I used to back where I used to live.
So that leaves the question, what church should I be going to? And who's supposed to baptize me? I'm not exactly in the "ideal" family for this faith. If someone could just give me tips or advice, or anything, I would appreciate it.
Hello Lost!
I'm incredibly excited at your decision to follow Christ! Hallelujah!
That said, you seem to be in a bit of a precarious position. As a Catholic youth minister, obviously my recommendation would be to hook up with the closest Catholic Church to you. Not knowing the geography of your situation, I don't know what parish that would be.
The best advice I can give you for that is pray. Then research. Figure out which Catholic church is closest to you, get their number, and call the priest. If possible, arrange a meeting with him--otherwise, just over the phone share your predicament--your recent decision for Christ, your lack of transportation, your lack of familial support (or possible hostility), but your firm desire to press on.
It is possible, that, God having brought you this far, and since He is more than willing to bring you all the way, that the Church will have a plan to bring you out to them. Possibly a neighbour right nearby attends that very church and can take you.
From there, you would sign up for the RCIA classes (which likely began in September, so unfortunately, you may have to wait till next year--but again, that's the decision of the priest), which will go through and explain the Catholic faith to you clearly and concisely. It culminates at the Easter Vigil, at which you would be Baptised, Confirmed, and receive your First Holy Communion with the other members of the RCIA in a spectacular Mass celebrating Christ's resurrection (when I became a Catholic, it was amazing, and Easter Vigil is still my favourite mass all year!). After that, RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, btw) continues for another month or so, helping you sort out the "now what" questions.
That's typically the process. Ultimately, God wants you to follow Him, and He'll make it possible. Yeah, it might be bumpy along the way. Sometimes we'll have to sacrifice. But He's with us, and even uses those hard times for tremendous spiritual benefits! So, again, PRAY, and call the closest Church. Your local Yellow Pages should have a list of Churches of various denominations, sorted by their affiliation. Catholic churches will likely be under "Roman Catholic", and their addresses should be included.
And I guarantee you of my prayers for you!
God bless you abundantly on your journey, and please update us from time to time!
Gregory
Thanks greg:)
And I will update you!:)
Very cool!
God bless!
Hello Greg!
Haven't said anything in a while...
A question for you,
I think at some point you may have mentioned a book or thesis written by Saint Augustine on the subject of necessity of war.
Can you give me some basic facts and details regarding it? Do you know what this book contains and its reasoning?
Since Pope Benedict has been talking about violence's incompatibility with the nature of God recently, I thought it perhaps fitting to ask.
If I'm talking nonsense you can disregard this post completely.
God Bless,
~Remy~
Hey Remy!
You're thinking of St. Augustine's Just War Theory (or doctrine).
I can't remember all of it, but while yes, the Pope says that violence is incompatible with the nature of God, what he meant by that is that violence as a means of religious propagation is at odds with God's gracious and loving character.
Unfortunately, due to the sinfulness of humanity, violence is a reality in this world, and sometimes it even needs to be used in order to prevent greater harm.
Hence the Just War Doctrine.
I might forget parts, but from memory, these are the key issues:
1. War is just if undertaken as a means of self-defence.
2. War is just if all other means of conflict resolution have been attempted and been unsuccessful or shown to be unreasonable.
3. The damage from war must be less than what would have been the result without intervention.
I can't remember if there is anything else. I'll look it up when I have an opportunity, and give a fuller list of the characteristics of the Just War Doctrine.
God bless,
Gregory
Thanks a lot Greg!
Hey I have a question..
Ok well I asked it to one of my friends, but his answers didn't seem to satisfy my curiousity.
As far as the Bible goes, it teaches not to marry non-christians as they can pull you away from Jesus(or at least attempt to). My question is how does that apply with dating? Are we not supposed to date non-christians either? If that's the case, then it leads into the second part of this question.
As far as friends go, I've been told that you can be friends with a non-christian because you can preach the Bible and Jesus and everything to them. What doesn't make sense to me is that if we can be friends with non-christians because we can preach to them, then how come we wouldn't be able to date a non-christian? I mean, I know that if you're dating the person, it very well may lead to eventual marriage, but wouldn't you still be able to preach the same things to someone you were dating as you would to your friends?
Hopefully you can answer this question for me.:)
2 Corinthians 6:14 "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"
1st:In essence, this verse is saying (at the least) 'don't marry a non-Christian (unbeliever)'.
To me, it would follow that dating, the purpose of which (as I see it) being trying to see if you and the other person are 'right' for each other and should get married, is not something that should occur between a Christian and a non-Christian.
2nd: Yes, you can preach to a significant other. But it is going to be considerably less stressful for both you and the other if you do not preach to them as Christian to non-Christian.
If necessary, I can explain why.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
Post a Comment
<< Home